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).
Issue which arises for our consideration is whether Rs. 12 lakhs paid by the appellant assessee to the seller at the time of purchase of the property in question must be construed as a cost of acquisition of the asset so as to be deducted from the full value of consideration received by the appellant assessee at the time when he had sold and transferred the property in question.
Advertisement expenditure was incurred in terms of the license agreement granting the distribution rights to the assessee by the associated enterprise, Discovery Asia Inc. Under this agreement, the respondent assessee had procured right to distribute the signals of Discovery
Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Anand Decors & Ors. v. CTT, New Delhi, has pronounced that the cars, even though fall within capital goods, but sale of used cars is not subject to VAT under Delhi VAT Act, by virtue of section 6(3) of ibid.
