Income Tax : Where a person required to furnish a return of income under Section 139, fails to do so within the time prescribed in sub-section ...
Income Tax : The Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contains an inclusive definition of the term business. There are differences betwe...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court, has held in CIT vs. Samara India(P) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 93 , following the decision of Supreme Court in T...
Income Tax : The provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to allowances disclose that the expenditure or outgoing sought to be deducted should...
Income Tax : In CIT vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. [2014] 221 TAXMAN 323, the Delhi High Court has observed (at page 341), that if the money paid rela...
Income Tax : In our view this is not a fair or proper procedure. If not in the first notice, at least at the time of furnishing the reasons the...
Income Tax : The assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on two grounds. The CIT(A) had accepted the arguments of the assessee, in ligh...
Income Tax : We noted that in the very first year i.e. AY 2011-12, the depreciation has already allowed the claim of depreciation. We noted tha...
Income Tax : The estimate of warranty made by the assessee on the basis of past history cannot be treated as a provision for any ascertained li...
Income Tax : Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the ass...
In other words, the amount so incurred would be capitalized entitling the assessee to depreciation as per the eligible rate. The learned Members of the ITAT held that the facts of the instant case precisely fall within the ambit of Explanation 1 to section 32 and upheld the impugned order treating such amount as capital expenditure, eligible for depreciation.
The main plea of assessee was that because of multiplity of proceedings going on before different authorities filing of captioned appeal was delayed. The AR for the assessee had filed before ITAT an events chart of various assessment proceedings / appellate proceedings between the period 28.12.2007 to 21.05.2015, on which date the appeal was filed before the Tribunal.
Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah PCIT Vs Nokia India Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court of India) In PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 3450 Of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.32222 of 2017), decided on 08.04.2019], appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 passed by […]
Power of review is not an inherent power but must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Courts have consistently held that review proceedings imply those proceedings where a party, as of right, can apply for reconsideration of the matter already decided upon after a fresh hearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties and that such a remedy is available only if provided by the statute.
As the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 37(1) of foreign tax credit on which tax credit is not available u/s 90 has been admitted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Sons (supra), the same being a debatable issue, no revisionary proceedings u/s 263 is tenable.
Jefferris India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) When there was no willful concealment and mistake involved human error, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) deleted
Grundfos Pumpas India case: Where the provision was made on a scientific basis and not on an adhoc estimate, deduction in respect of provision for warranty was allowed
Where Any Incriminating Material Was Not Found During The Course Of Search, The Completed Assessments Could Not Be Opened: Varun Beverages Appeal
Lovelock & Lewes case: Expenditure incurred by the assessee on payment of software licence fees for applications software for the right to use the software for limited/particular period of time held to be revenue expenditure
He held that the amount in question thus represented provision for meeting unascertained liabilities which was not allowable as deduction in the case of the assessee. He accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 2,25,01,129/- on account of future development expenses and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2016.
