Revenue contended that Tribunal has no authority to extend the period of stay beyond a period of 365 days from the initial date of grant of stay in view of third proviso to section 254(2A). As 365 days would expire on 30.03.2015
A reading of the agreement between STL and the assessee clarifies that a specific amount, i.e., Rs. 9 Crores was paid by the assessee to the transferor who owned commercial rights towards the network and the facilities.
Applicability of TDS to be determined having regard to the agreement between the contracting parties and not by particular assumption of the deductee about the nature of transaction
The various authorities of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 has highlighted that the power under Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct a mere error of an AO, based upon an incorrect assumption of fact.
Hon’ble HC did not find any merit in the ground of delay in issuance of notice. Court further remitted the matters ITAT to decide afresh on merits. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears, particularly the contextual facts discussed
The reserve, which is required to be created under Section 45-IC, is out of the profits earned by a non-banking financial institution. It is not an amount diverted at source by overriding title. The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 can permit appropriation in respect of the said reserve.
The Revenue’s argument seems plausible and even logical because the Commissioner or a Chief Commissioner is unarguably ranked higher in authority than a Joint Commissioner. Yet at the same time
In the present case, there is no doubt at all that the assessee cooperated and appeared both in the assessment as well as reassessment proceedings. Therefore, it had deemed notice of the re-assessment proceedings.
In the present instance, the AO apparently had the books and all the relevant information pertaining to the share applicants. CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 2008 (216) CTR (SC) 195 directs that whilst the initial onus to prove the identity of a third party,
The assessee submitted that with respect to the addition of ₹24.3 crores, both the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had noticed that the matter with respect to this liability was sub-judice and pending adjudication in the Company Court which since by its interim judgment dated 25.4.2013
