Section 170 of the Income Tax Act deals with succession to business, otherwise than on death. On a reading of Section 43(6)(c), Explanation 2 to the Section and Section 170 along with the fourth proviso to Section 32(1), we have no hesitation in agreeing with the assessee’s case that when the assessee transferred its B Unit to the 100% subsidiary company,
As already seen, merely because, more than one panchanama is drawn in the given case on one authorisation, one cannot construe that the subsequent and the last of the panchanama issued as one flowing out of the search as a last of the panchanama referrable to Explanation (2) to Section 1 58BE. Once the warrant of authorisation has been issued and the premises is searched and the search party leaves the premises,
It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the notice of attachment of immovable property as she is not the owner of the property as per her claim. If the notice has been wrongly issued to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent authority setting out the details of the transaction that has taken place as above.
A reading of Section 32(2) thus makes it clear that if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be wholly set off under clause (i) and clause (ii), the amount of depreciation not so set off can be set off from income from other head, if any, available for that assessment year. The language of Section 32(2) is very clear and there is hardly anything contained in Section 72(2) to prevent such set off of carried forward depreciation being given to the assessee under the head of income from business or income from other sources.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that unrealised export turnover should be included in the Total Turnover while it is not treated as Export Turnover for purposes of computing the allowable deduction under Section 80HHC ?
It is not denied by the Revenue that U. Mohanrao was the Chairman and Managing Director of some of the companies which got merged with the assessee company. The said U. Mohanrao had access to all information starting from manufacturing process, knowhow to the clientele and the products, including the pricing of the products.
Apex Court in the decision reported in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange of one property for the other. Higher depreciation on plastic mould to be allowed only if asset used in a business constituting a separate unit
The petitioner who was serving as the Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi was charged with offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13( 1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Given the fact that the Settlement Commission order was made on 11.6.2002 and as on the date of insertion to Explanation 1(iv) with effect from 1.6.2002 the applications were pending before the Settlement Commission, we have no hesitation in rejecting the assessees’ contention that the Explanation should not be given retrospective effect.
ourt held that upgradation of computers by changing certain parts, thereby enhancing the configuration of the computers for improving their efficiency, was only a revenue expenditure. The said view was again followed by this Court in CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 15.
