During the assessment year 2006-07 in question in the provisions laid down u/s 32(i)(iia) there was specific condition alongwith installation of new plant or machinery after 31st March, 2005 that the new plant or machinery must also be acquired after 31st March, 2005.
Transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee for creating or improving the marketing intangible for and on behalf of the foreign Associated Enterprises is permissible.
Having gone through the orders of the authorities below we find that the claim of the assessee that the building in question was purchased by it and was in use for the purpose of its business was not denied by the AO. The AO has disallowed the claimed depreciation only on the basis that the building was yet to be registered in the name of the assessee company.
From the proviso to Section 92C(4), it is evident that no deduction in Chapter VI-A is to be allowed in respect of the income which is enhanced after the computation of income in the said Section. Thus, the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Chapter VI-A in respect of the addition made as per the TPO’s order.
Explore how Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholds consistency in mobilization advance treatment, referencing an accepted accounting method and legal precedent.
The proviso to sub-section (1) to section 209, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 is prospective in nature and not with retrospective effect. The proviso was brought into operation with effect from 1-4-2012, therefore, the assertion of revenue is disagreed with. Even otherwise, the language used in section 209(1) is regarding payment of advance tax in the financial year, therefore, the proviso is not attracted for the impugned assessment year.
A bare look at section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with rectification, makes it amply clear that a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended.
We find that society is running the school under the management of receiver appointed by Hon’ble High Court. For the entire years the income of the school was exempt and for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had obtained prior approval of CCIT, Panchkulla for exemption u/s 10(23)(vi).
Admittedly, as per TDS certificate issued by Mysore Breweries Limited, the total reimbursement made to the assessee as per their newly arrangement was Rs. 3,35,85,000/-. However, in the books of assessee, it was only Rs. 2,54,97,000/-. The assessee had explained that a credit note of Rs. 80,88,000/- issued by it in favour of Mysore Breweries Limited was not accounted for by them
Assessee secured a licence from the RBI under section 45-I of the RBI Act, to carry on the business of non-banking finance, including micro-finance services. There exists Prudential Norms, issued by the RBI. The assessee, being a licensed NBFC, it had to follow the directives of the RBI. It was in accordance therewith, as also in accordance with the Accounting standards issued by the ICAI, that the assessee derecognized the interest on NPAs.
