his Court in Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 382 ITR 630 (Del) had noted that this method is a known and recognised method of accounting, and was approved as a proper one. The Court had also relied on CIT v. Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC).
The writ petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is aggrieved by the refusal – by the respondents i.e. the income tax authorities -to release the jewellery – approximately 319. 98 g, seized by them in the course of search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act).
As there is no representational right conferred by AAI on the petitioners, the OM DA cannot constitute a franchise in terms of Section 65(47) of the Finance Act. Further as no service is being provided by AAI to the petitioners, there cannot be said to be any taxable service in terms of section 65(105) (zze).
In this case, the expenditure clearly is not towards acquisition of the capital nor is it an integral part of it, it is only the service alone. It is of a similar kind that would otherwise have been permitted under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
High Court held that that the disallowance of Rs. 70 lakhs paid by the assessee respondent as a condition pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.02.2007 was liable as an expense as same was appropriated by the Customs authorities and it was covered by Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi HC remanded the matter to AO to verify that claim towards the payment of Rs.3,19,66,460/- does not include any income component and if it constitutes reimbursement, the question of application of Section 40(a)(ia) would not arise.
Notice issued under section 147 of the Act in respect of an entity which ceases to exist by virtue of amalgamation order under section 394 of Companies Act, would be illegal and unsustainable.
Appellant has adduced documentary evidences in support of transaction in question. Identity of purchasers of shares was established as it was borne on record of Income Tax Department.
(a) Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) did not in fact record satisfaction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing notice under Section 147, in the circumstances of the case?
Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act even when the assessee was not the owner of the property in question and was in possession thereof as a lessee during the year under consideration?
