Honorable ble Supreme court held that Visveswaraiah Technological University being not wholly or substantially financed by government is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiab). Further, the fees collected by the University as per prescribed govt. norms cannot be said to finance provided by govt. Therefore, assistance by govt. by way of loans, grants and subsidies only to be considered as financing from it.
The business of the company was to lease its property and to earn rent and therefore, the income so earned should be treated as its business income. The High court was not correct while deciding that the income of the appellant should be treated as Income from House Property.
To recapitulate briefly, the assessee is a company as defined under Section 2(17) of the Act and is also in the business of operating qualifying ship(s). It is also not in dispute that it owns a qualifying ship and fulfillment of this condition permits the assessee to exercise its option for computation of income from the business of operating qualifying ships under Chapter XIIG of the Act.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was right in law in holding, that, the interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the Year of purchase of securities.
It was held that in case of erstwhile in terms of Rule 57AB(1C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, it was held that in terms of circular dated 1.7.2002 by which, where no sale is involved but only a transfer by one sister unit to another, the value shown in the invoice on the basis of which Cenvat credit was taken by the assessee would be the value for the purpose of Rule 57AB and Rule 3(4).
Hon’ble SC held that Making a claim which would prima facie disclose that the expenses in respect of which deduction has been claimed has been incurred and thereafter abandoning/withdrawing the same gives rise to the necessity of further enquiry in the interest of the Revenue.
It is not in dispute that the period during which interim stay of the order passed by the court is in operation has to be excluded while computing the period of two years as limitation period prescribed for completing the block assessment.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court delivering very important judgment with regard to taxability of inter-state works contract. In the case of Commissioner, Delhi VAT vs ABB Ltd., it has been held that in case the goods are purchased from other States or are imported from outside the country
The assessees are engaged in the business of owning, operating, and managing hotels. Surveys conducted at the business premises of the assessees allegedly revealed that the assessees had been paying tips to its employees but not deducting taxes thereon.
The Supreme Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd. that the Calcutta High Court in Merino Ply & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, 209 ITR 508 [1994], held that transport subsidies were inseparably connected with the business carried on by the assessee.
