n the present case, neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in any case doubted. These were the conclusions on facts drawn by the Appellate Commissioner. The Tribunal also did not disturb such facts but relied solely on Rule 6DD (j) of the Rules to hold
Sub-section(4) of section 80P will not apply to an assessee which is not a co-operative bank. In the case clarified by CBDT, Delhi Coop Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. was under consideration. Circular clarified that the said entity not being a co-operative bank
Expenditure incurred on soda ash project interest expenses and lab project interest was allowable and it was not pre-operative expenditure of interest by way of revenue expenditure as it was for an expansion of the existing business.
In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court has held that prima facie it is of the view that penalty u/s 45 (3A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is not mandatory. However, in the opinion of the court, the question as to whether once the authority decides to impose penalty
In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court has remanded the issue of not allowing input tax credit on purchases affected through retail invoices to Tribunal for fresh adjudication. For penalty imposed u/s 34 (12) of The GVAT Act, 2003
What is important is whether the interest earned on the Central Government grant is to be treated as the income earned or not, and not what the assessee claimed. As stated hereinabove, in the letter of the Central Government releasing the grant, which provides a condition that the interest earned
If the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
Section 43B which permits a deduction for payments made upto the due date for filing the ROI applies only to the employer’s contribution to the provident fund etc. It does not apply to the employees’ contribution.
Change in method of accounting was bona fide and with the compliance of the Accounting Standard – AS 9 – Revenue Recognition issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and provisions of S.5 of the Act.
In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Hence, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
