Non-compete fee Incurred by IMPL is a capital expenditure which is in the nature of any other business or commercial rights and hence eligible for depreciation under the provisions of the Act. T
Merely relying upon the information from the Sales Tax Department or the fact that parties were not produced the Assessing Officer could not have treated the purchases as bogus and made addition.
Undoubtedly, prior to the amendment made by Finance (Nos.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015, the language of section 54 of the Act required the assessee to invest the capital gain in a residential property.
Section 50C is a measure provided to bridge the gap as it was found that the assessee were not correctly declaring the full value of consideration or in other words resorting to the practice of under valuation. Further, the decision of Special Bench in the case of ITO vs. United Marines Academy (supra) has made it clear that section 50C will be applicable on the sale value of depreciable asset.
If appellant explained source of loans received by it and duly discharges the onus cast on him under section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961 than despite the fact that lender may have raised bogus share capital to advance funds to appellant does not mean that loan received by appellant can be treated as unexplained income under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Relative explained in Explanation to section 56(2)(vi) of the Act includes relatives and as the assessee received gift from his HUF, which is a group of relatives, the gift received by the assessee from the HUF should be interpreted to mean that the gift was received from the relatives therefore the same is not taxable under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, we hold accordingly.
Amount received by the assessee on account of reimbursement which has been received over and above the amount of FTS cannot be included and taxed as part of FTS.
Transfer Pricing Officer has selected RPM as most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price of the transaction of sale of programmes and film rights to ATL in contrast to the TNM method selected by the assessee. The first controversy is as to whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in selecting the RPM as most appropriate method.
In the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off
Where Assessing Officer issued two notices for imposition of penalty namely, one u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and second u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAA in cases where search u/s 132 of the Act has been initiated, then such notices issued by AO are untenable in law.
