It would be for the respondent to establish during the trial that her failure to file her return was not wilful. The Courts below went wrong in going into the question as to whether the explanation offered by the respondent in response to the show cause notice given to her before the filing
The Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the decision pronounced in the case of CIT vs. Goyal MG Gases Ltd., (2008) 296 ITR 72 (Delhi) wherein it was held that a tanker or a gas cylinder attached to the body of a truck continues to be a gas cylinder
This Court is of the opinion that there has been inordinate delay in fixation of the writ petitioner’s fee. The facts would reveal that the petitioner’s services were availed more than 6 years ago and the final report of its special audit received on 22.09.2006.
In the present case the ITAT has recorded that it is undisputed that the two aircrafts were used by the Assessee for its business. Since this is the undisputed factual position, the same would be exempt from wealth tax.
key issue is whether the ownership of an industrial undertaking is a relevant factor for the purposes of construing the provisions of Section 80-I of the said Act. We find ourselves to be in agreement with the submission made by Mr Ganesh that Section 80-I does not speak of the ownership of an industrial undertaking.
In the said case, the respondent was a publisher of books but did not have a printing press. He would procure manuscripts, hit upon a suitable format, get it printed from third parties under his supervision, get the book bound and put it out for sale.
The Assessing Officer had noticed that grant of Rs.35 crores was sanctioned by the Government in the said year to improve air connectivity in North-Eastern Region. The respondent-assessee had taken on lease four ATR-42-320 aircrafts for five years from Ms/ Aviande Transport Regional
The important question that has got to be considered is from which date are the expenses of this business to be considered permissible deductions and for that purpose the section that we have got to look to is section 2(11) and that section defines the „previous year‟
Did the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) fall into error in not holding that the loss of Rs. 4,92,71,000/- on account of derivative transaction was a speculative loss, and was entitled to the benefit of Section 73, in view of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act
It is a common case that Satyam Computer Services Ltd. should not be taken into consideration. The tribunal for valid and good reasons has pointed out that Infosys Technologies Ltd. cannot be taken as a comparable in the present case.
