Direct Stay Application filed before the Tribunal is maintainable and it is not the requirement of the law that assessee should necessarily approach the CIT before approaching the Tribunal for grant of stay.
Whether the assessee firm can get the benefit of Sec. 54EC, even though an investment in respect of capital gain is made by the two partners individually in the notified securities e. bonds issued by the Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (RECL)?
Entire case of the Assessing Officer rests on Explanation (ii) to section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act which prescribes that the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority.
While granting the exemption or renewal of exemption under section 80G(5) of the Act, the role of CIT is limited to look into the nature of activities being carried on by the institution or fund and the violation if any, of the provisions of section 13 of the Act and its various sub‑sections are to be looked into by the Assessing Officer while deciding the issue
The assessee is a non-scheduled Co-operative Bank carrying on banking business in terms of a license issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and is thus governed by Circulars of RBI relating to Prudential Norms, Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning
In this case, assessee has earned by way of dividends a sum of Rs.5,45,58,685/-, which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and thus the same does not form part of the total income under the Act. In the computation of income, assessee having regard to section 14A of the Act
The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in construction business which was subject to a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act on 06.10.2009. In the course of search, Shri Rajesh Malpani, partner of the assessee firm in a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 03.12.2009
The facts of the case are that the assessee is a jeweller and it is in this business for the last number of years. There was a search at the assessee’s premises by the DRI on 13th Feb., 1993 in which they found that the assessee had purchased silver weighing 1,913.295 kgs. and the same was seized. The stand of the assessee was that it had purchased silver of 194.25 kgs. from M/s Dilipkumar Hirachand, Jalgaon and the balance 1,713.80 kgs. through the agent in Mumbai who arranged the purchases of this quantity from 18 NRIs who had brought it from Middle-East countries. The DRI did not accept the contention of the assessee and seized the entire silver on the contention that the assessee did not prove that it was a legal purchase.
Mere mistake in making of a claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The wrong claim of depreciation in the present case cannot be said to be made with an intention to evade taxes in as much as even after the disallowance of depreciation, the resultant income of the assessee remains a loss. In fact, the assessee had pointed out before the Assessing Officer that it has been incurring losses since the year 2003 due to the market forces. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view, the impugned disallowance on account of depreciation is a mistake, and does not invite the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The view of the Larger Bench that the assessee had to be directly engaged in developing, maintaining and operating the facility and that there had to be a complete development of the facility and not just a part of it is contrary to the law laid down in ABG Heavy Industries 322 ITR 323 (Bom). The High Court held that The assessee did not have to develop the entire project in order to qualify for a deduction under s. 80-IA. The Parliament did not legislate a condition impossible of compliance.
