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...
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Nagpur Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. that in order to attract ceiling u/s 40(c), the payment must be a periodical payment. A Lumsum payment or one time payment is not covered under section 40(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High court held In the case of CIT vs. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. that following the judgment of (2003) 264 ITR (38) (Bom.) (CIT vs. Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.)
Bombay High court held In the case of The CIT vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia & others. that amendments in the statute unless a different legislative intention is clearly expressed, shall operate prospectively.
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Vijay Udhyog vs. CIT that where two opinion or views are available and one of the view is taken by the AO, cannot be a basis for revision of order u/s 263. Also none of the clauses of section 80I(2)(i) to (iv) prohibit the assessee from taking other industrial undertakings on hire and use it for the purpose of manufacturing activity.
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s Amit Engineers vs. ACIT that it is a trite law that the only condition for the Assessing Officer to reopen the case is that for whatever reasons he has ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment.
High court held In the case of The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. DCIT & CCIT that the CCIT is empowered and authorized to waive interest under section 234C only if the assessee case falls any of the two cases mentioned in notification dated 26/6/2006 for the income tax authorities
High court held In the case of The CIT vs. M/s Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd that the fundamental basis on which the assessment was re-opened itself is untenable. We are fully agree with the contention of the Tribunal that in the absence of any justifiable vitiating circumstances
ITAT Chennai held In the case of The Continental Enterprise vs. ITO that as per explanation 1 to sec.32, where any business or profession is carried on in a leased building and any capital expenditure incurred for business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing any work in
High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Mahajan that the income or profits as ascertained and determined by the assessee himself cannot always be accepted as correct because it is the duty of the A.O. to consider whether the books disclose the true state of accounts and whether the correct
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ITO vs. M/s Bharat Agro Industries that section 69 comes into operation only if investments are not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee which is not the case looking to the facts of the assessee wherein the bank balances are shown in the audited balance sheet
