The ITAT considered the submissions and concluded that the AO could not have brought to tax the amounts that he ultimately did merely based upon the DVO’s report in the absence of any material pointing to under valuation.
The writ petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution ofIndia, is a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, challenges aruling dated 21.03.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned ruling’) ofthe Authority for Advance Ruling, (herein after referred to as ‘AAR’) in A.A.R.
CIT vs. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Sub-section (4) of section 10B stipulated that deduction under that section shall be computed by apportioning the profits of the business of the undertaking in the ratio of turnover to the total turnover.
Issue – Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal in computing book profit under Section 115JB was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,80,00,000/- transferred to the special reserve pursuant to the provisions of Section 45-IC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 under Clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 115JB
Section 269SS would not be violative when money is exchanged inter-se between the partners and partnership firm in spite of the fact that the partnership firm and individual partners are separate assessees.
The UP Scheme under which the assessee claims exemption to the extent of entertainment tax subsidy, claiming it to be capital receipt, is clearly designed to promote the investors in the cinema industry encouraging establishment of new multiplexes.
This Court finds that no interest is leviable on the respondent assessees under Section 234B, even though they filed returns declaring NIL income at the stage of reassessment. The payers were obliged to determine whether the assessees were liable to tax under Section 195(1), and to what extent, by taking recourse to the mechanism provided in Section 195(2) of the Act.
On the issue whether the respondent-assessee could have earned dividend income and even if no dividend income was earned, yet Section 14A can be invoked and disallowance of expenditure can be made, there are three decisions of the different High Courts directly on the issue and against the appellant-Revenue.
DGFT denied the benefit of SFIS, as framed under the FTPto the Petitioners and separate communications were sent to the Petitioners withdrawing/recalling the said benefits on the ground that they were subsidiaries of foreign companies
Recently, in case of YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT.LTD AND Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, Hon’ble Delhi High Court pronounced that there is no provision in the Foreign Trade Policy which debars an Indian subsidiary of a foreign holding company from availing the benefit of Serve From India Scheme(SFIS).
