Income Tax : Question - What is Krishi Kalyan Cess? Answer - An enabling provision is being made to levy Krishi Kalyan Cess on all taxable serv...
Goods and Services Tax : ♠ Input Tax Credit means credit of input tax. ♠ Every taxable person is entitled to take credit of input tax. ♠ Input tax me...
Goods and Services Tax : This act may be called the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2016. It extends to whole India. IGST applicable on all supplies...
Corporate Law : a cheque in the electronic form means a cheque drawn in electronic form by using any computer resource and signed in a secure sys...
Goods and Services Tax : This act may be called the Central GST Act, 2016 (CGST) / State GST Act, 2016 (SGST). It extends to the whole India. In case of SG...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula pr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in th...
Income Tax : It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that clause 244A (1) (b) is residual in nature which prescr...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transf...
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of ITO vs. M/s LGW Ltd that share application money is only in the nature of an offer to buy shares made by the assessee. It is only after the offer is accepted by the company; the Assessee becomes the shareholder in a company.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Ravi Spice Processors P. Ltd vs. ACIT that amendment to Sec. 40(a) (ia) whereby a second proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which state that if the payee has considered the income in return of income and tax has been paid by the payee
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of Shri Mohd. Imran Baig & others vs. ITO that it is now settled in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shantilal Motilal V/s. CIT (365 ITR 389)
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Micro Ink Limited. Vs. ACIT that such interest is includible in operating income and the operating income itself has been accepted as reasonable under method TNMM, there cannot be an occasion to make adjustment for notional interest on delayed
Since the individual shares were not specified in the sale deed and the house property as well as the housing loan is to be taken as jointly by all the co-owners, the logical conclusion is that everyone had equal share in the property and the assessee was entitled to 1/4th deduction, i.e. 25% of the entire interest.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Golden Tobacco Limited (Formerly GTC Industries Limited) vs. The JCIT that the law does not give powers to the AO to reopen an assessment carried out u/s 143(3) after the expiry of four years unless the AO is able to demonstrate that there was failure on the part of the assessee in disclosure of material facts.
ITAT Chennai held In the case of The ACIT vs. Shri. B. Dhanasekaran that the enterprises carrying on development of the infrastructure facilities should be owned by a company or consortium of companies.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation vs. ACIT that in the case of CIT vs Vasisth Chayt Vyapar Ltd. 330 ITR 440 (Delhi) , it was held that the real income theory was still relevant and recognition of income in terms of Prudential Norms of RBI did not deviate from the mercantile system of account u/s 145 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust vs. ADCIT that the attributes available in the transaction of the assesee trust are unlike that of a trader and are more like that of an investor.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M.R Pattabhiram (HUF) vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Wealth tax that mere conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture could not be taken as the sole criteria to hold it as a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income tax act.
