After Punjab & Haryana High Court the Gujarat High Court also directs CBDT to extend the due date for Filing of ITR to October 31st in its Judgement today.
Issue- Whether the insertion of sub clause (iv) in Section 80-IB(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 conferring the benefit of the deduction under this Section to undertakings engaged in commercial production of natural gas in blocks licensed under VIIIth round of bidding provided
The question which is posed for consideration is whether for considering the long term capital gain Cost Inflation Index is required to be considered at the date on which the property was inherited in the name of the assessee or as per the previous cost of acquisition at which previous owner had acquired the capital asset.
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that depreciation not claimed for by the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block assets. Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also.
Can SEZ unit claim exemption from CVD when cleared to DTA based on an Exemption Notification issued under Section 5A of CEA’1944 although when there is specific bar under Section 5A for SEZ units?
On Appeal Honourable high court has held that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal reported in 287 Income Tax Reports 547, the loss which was incurred during the course of business even if the same is illegal is required to be compensated and for the loss suffered by the assessee.
We could notice from the record that the assessee was having share holding funds to the extent of 2607.18 crores and the investment made by it was to the extent of Rs. 195.10 crores. In other words, the assessee had sufficient funds for making the investments and it has not used the borrowed
There is no dispute about the fact that the order of penalty at annexure A dated 12.3.2010 was made against the petitioner on the basis of the assessment of income of the petitioner done by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act.
CBDT is directed to modify the notification dated 20th August, 2014 issued in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act by extending the due date for furnishing the return of income to 30th November, 2014.
The question pertains to the purchases made by the assessee-respondent. On account of unverifiable purchases, the Assessing Officer made additions to the tune of Rs. 1.27 crores. He was of the opinion that none of the parties could be located and therefore, such purchases were held to be bogus.
