If the assessee was entitled to make payment within the grace period and if within that grace period, its employer contributions have been deposited by the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee has not deposited the amount with the department within the due date as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act
Whenever any decision has been relied upon and/or cited by the assessee and/or any party, the authority/tribunal is bound to consider and/or deal with the same and opine whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the same will be applicable or not.
Capital gain arising of long term capital asset, if invested in specified asset, the assessee is not to be charged capital gains and exemption provided under Section 54EC of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee only on account of the fact that deeming fiction is created under Section 50 of the Act.
The fact is not in dispute that in the case on hand, the return has been filed electronically for the A.Y 2010-11 wherein, the petitioner has made a claim for deduction of TDS as per Form 26AS under section 203AA of the Act.
Liberty India (supra) was a case of non-operational subsidy inasmuch as the subsidy, provided in Liberty India (supra), did not relate to production; whereas the subsidies, in the present set of cases, are operational in nature inasmuch as the subsidies are related to the production
AO denied deduction u/s 80-IB(10) only on the ground that assessee engaged in business of construction had adopted ‘Project completion method’ instead of ‘Percentage completion method’ as prescribed under AS-7 (Revised). The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no allegation to the effect that on account of “Project completion method” adopted by the assessee, its profit for any particular year was distorted. Further, the assessee had followed the same system consistently for a long period of time. It was thus held that assessee must be allowed deduction u/s 80-IB(10).
Though the questions are multiple, issue is single, namely, the deduction of Rs.61,08,500/- claimed by the assessee towards expenditure being part of development charges. The assessee had paid such sum to Surat Municipal Corporation towards water connection charges.
The AO merely made comparative study of the expenses for the year under consideration with the preceding assessment year and found that expenses incurred in the preceding assessment year were 2.89% on turnover but in the assessment year under appeal it was 4.78% on the turnover.
The Tribunal in the assessee’s appeal considered several grounds titled as “Additional grounds”. However, upon close perusal of such so-called grounds, we notice that such grounds were nothing but legal contentions and arose out of order of CIT(Appeals) which was under challenge
Issue pertains to expenditure of Rs.1.02 crores ( rounded off) expended by the assessee and whether the same should be treated as capital or revenue expenditure. For the assessment year 2008-09 the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had debited in the profit and loss account
