Whether revenue is right in passing order giving instruction to bank to pay 50% of the demand raised against assessee when appeal against the assessment order was pending before CIT (A).
The appellant is urging this Court to dwell deep into the factual material and render findings of fact of which the jurisdiction of this Court does not permit such an inquiry as the high court cannot entertain an appeal which involves only factual issue.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the building had been developed to be sold or let out with no possibility of the terrace floor being subjected to such utilization. As there is no other purpose to be served by the property held on the terrace floor
Lump-sum payments are covered under the term royalty. The agreement postulated grant of permission to use or right to use intellectual property rights or knowhow and it is not a case of outright sale.
In regard to claim of expenditure on Registrar of Companies’ fee for increase in authorized share capital, the HC held that the same could not be allowed and was also not amortizable under Section 35D (2)(c)(iii) of the Act, not being fee for initial registration of the company.
The ITAT noted that there are three stages in operational business:- (i) setting up; (ii) post setting up but before commencement of business; and (iii) commencement of business and thereafter. In case of a building contractor
CIT (Appeals) did not offer any opportunity to the assessee to make submissions with respect to the materials obtained from the survey and unilaterally rendered findings, CIT (Appeals)’s order was bad for the reason that he did not follow the procedure prescribed by the law.
The expenses claimed for transportation could not have been a valid ground for rejecting the books of account considering the fact that the transport expenses in doubt was just 5.1% of total Transport Expense.
It was held that the eligible profits are not to be subjected to the adjustment under Section 72 of the Act, and the brought forward loss from the unit eligible for the relief under Section 10B cannot be adjusted against the profits from the other units
A.O. was not convinced by the explanation furnished by the assessee with regard to share capital received from six applicants and a sum of Rs.24 lacs was added u/s 68 of the Act. Appeal filed with CIT was rejected on the ground of assessee inability to explain the identity
