1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not acted illegally and perversely in making observations with regard to grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any application/appeal arising out of order passed either granting or rejecting exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the competent authority ?
Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments.
In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the assessee had income of interest through FDRs and while setting off that the Assessing Officer as well as the ITAT did not examine the aspect as to under which provision the assessee claimed deduction or set off his income from other sources against […]
Where AO allowed set off of interest earned on fixed deposits against interest payable on borrowings then such allowance was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, therefore, CIT rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction.
This petition filed by the petitioner company M/s. Shree Balkrishna Commercial Company Limited (hereinafter ‘the petitioner company’) under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act of 1956’) seeks winding up of the respondent company M/s. Ask Dairies Private Limited (hereinafter ‘the respondent company’) for reason of its inability to repay the due, […]
Court be very slow in interpreting the statutes where intention legislature is to curb the evasion of tax. This is a peculiar where the Government has granted the benefit under the only to the persons who are not covered under Section and other proceedings.
The words mentioned in the SECTION 158bc notice are `within fifteen days’ whereas the provision mandates the time of not less than fifteen days. As notice which was issued by the authority asking the assessee to file the return within fifteen days is not in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and therefore it is invalid.
1. Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issue of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?
Admittedly, the amounts were lying outstanding for the last couple of years and the assessee has rightly written off the said amount in the books of account and merely because a suit was not filed and that cannot be considered to be a cogent reason to disallow the claim which became bad. One need not incur good money for recovery of the so called irrecoverable or a bad money and file a suit which remains pending for years and with uncertainty.
As civil work and electric generator are taken to be a part of windmill, rate as is applicable for the depreciation for windmill would apply to the civil foundation and electric turbine generator also.
