When a Company issues FCCB, it incurs a liability to pay a larger amount than what is borrowed and such higher amount payable by the Company will be for the purpose of its business in order to generate funds for its business activities. The amounts so obtained are used by the Company for the purposes of its business. Hence the liability to pay the additional amount would therefore be revenue expenditure.
We find that this addition has solely been made on the basis of a statement obtained from the secretary of the assessee. There is no corroborative material whatsoever. A mere statement by the secretary cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of undisclosed income earned.
Production loss depends on number of factors and in absence of any comparable to show that loss shown by the assessee is excessive, the contention of the assessee has to be accepted
In view of CIT v. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 47 (Delhi), batteries which were used along with UPS and which formed a system for power back up in case of power failure qualified for depreciation at 60 per cent.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)- 46, Mumbai dated 20-1-2017 for assessment year 2011-12 in the matter of order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act wherein following grounds have been taken by the assessee
Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputed facts are, the Assessing Officer by treating the management charges as Head Office expenses has restricted the claim of the assessee to 5% of the total adjusted income in terms of section 44C of the Act. Whereas, learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the order passed […]
M/s. Hinduja Group India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Submission of detailed submitted before AO in summarised & Tabular Form before CIT cannot be considered as submission of any new evidence Power of the appellate authority clearly overrides the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 46A and it is open to the […]
Ms. G. Shoe Exports Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case, admittedly the Tribunal order was passed beyond three months from hearing. No reason whatsoever for the delay has been recorded. As held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court above, such delay is incurable and even administrative clearance cannot cure the same. As held by […]
M/s. Pratik Syntex Private Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant appeal before us, the inspector was deputed by the AO to make field enquiries who could not locate these three shareholders and the assessee also could not furnish the current addresses of these three new shareholders. These in the instant case before us, […]
Payment towards outright purchase of copyright and technical know-how over the software could not be treated as royalty paid for acquisition of right to use copyrights and technical know-how, therefore, said payment could not be subjected to TDS under section 194J.
