The assesse would be entitled to the approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, however if it was found that the funds of the assesse had not been utilized for its objects during the relevant year or had otherwise not complied with the provisos to the Section 10(23C) of the Act
Section 43B deals with statutory dues and stipulates that the year in which the payment is made the same would be allowed as a deduction even if the assessee is following the mercantile system of accountancy.
In the present case the retrospective amendment was introduced after the original assessment. The introduction of the amendment occasioned the re-assessment. The reassessment order gave effect to the amendment.
a. The PMS Agreement in this case was a mere agreement of agency and cannot be used to infer any intention to make profit. b. The intention of an assessee must be inferred holistically, from the conduct of the assessee, the circumstances of the transactions, and not just from the seeming motive at the time of depositing the money
In an Writ Petition filed by Mr. Harish Khurana before Delhi High Court against the Various amendment made by Companies Act,2013, Ministry of Corporate Affairs has submitted before the Honorable Delhi High Court that several representations made by the petitioner and other similarly
The assessee is engaged in business of auto spare pails and investment in bonds, mutual funds and other securities. The assessee filed his return declaring STCG on the basis that the shares were purchased with an intention of investment.
The facts of this case are that the petitioner lost its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on 20.11.2013. The revenue issued notice under Section 221 for determined demand amounts due for the AY 2007-08, which was subject matter of the appeal before the CIT (Appeals).
Hon’ble Delhi HC has held in the case of ‘Bharti Gupta Ramola Vs. CIT’ that For computing holding period of asset both date on which asset is acquired & date on which said asset is sold or transferred are not to be excluded.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of AT&T Communication Services India (P) Ltd vs. CIT held that The question whether the accounts and the related documents and records available with the A.O. present complexity is essentially to be decided by the A.O. and in this area the power of the court to intrude should necessarily be used sparingly.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that The law only requires that the information or material on which the AO records his or her satisfaction is communicated to the asseseee, without mandating the disclosure of any specific document.
