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...
Back office operations carried on at an office would fall within the exclusionary clause of Article 5(3) (e) of the Treaty between India and United States which is also identically worded as Article 5(3) (e) of the India-UAE DTAA.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. that Mr. Rattan Gupta was not only doing the audit work of the five Assessee companies, but determining who should be the directors of the said companies.
Statements recorded would certainly constitute information and if such information is relatable to the evidence or material found during search, the same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4).
It is clear that the AO did not apply his mind independently and went by the order of the CIT. It is a settled law that a quasi-judicial authority cannot afford to act on the direction and in the present case on the direction of a superior officer.
Section 150(2) enacts the situation where the provisions for assessment pursuant to appeal u/s 150(1) will not be applicable. Provisions of section 150(1) shall not apply where the reassessment proceedings would have been barred by time even at the time when the order, which was the subject-matter of appeal, revision, etc., was passed.
As per provisions u/s 24, it is crystal clear that deduction is allowable on account of interest paid on the borrowed capital within three years from the end of the financial year in which capital was borrowed.
Bombay High Court held that it is not open for the tribunal to disregard the binding decision of jurisdictional high court. Once there is a binding decision of jurisdictional high Court, the same continues to be binding on all authorities within the State till such time as it stayed and / or set aside by the Apex Court or this very Court takes a different view on an identical factual matrix or larger bench of this Court takes a view different from one already taken.
Gujarat High Court held In the case of Tata Teleservices vs. Union of India that while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable w.e.f. 1/10/2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08
No TP adjustment can be made by deducing from the difference between AMP expenditure incurred by assessee and AMP expenditure of comparable entity, if there is no explicit arrangement between the assessee and its foreign AE for incurring such expenditure.
Grant of tenancy rights by the assessee trust and the premium of Rs.51.00 lakhs received in lieu thereof from the tenants is a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and is therefore liable for capital gains and is not advance rent exigible to tax under the head income from house property.
