Income Tax : In the Case of Sapient Consulting Limited vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi relying upon the order of Jurisdictional High Court held that frami...
Income Tax : In the case of Shashi Gupta vs. ITO, the Delhi Tribunal while considering the effective date of transfer of immovable property for...
Income Tax : In the case of Shree Hari Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Kolkata Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of alleged excess consu...
Custom Duty : In the Case of M/s GMR Energy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal of...
Corporate Law : In the case of Shamsher singh verma vs. State of Haryana, the Apex court on the point of admissibility of evidence held that the â...
Investments are made in Govt. securities, debentures, bonds having fixed rate of return. Assessee is maintaining books of account on mercantile system i.e, on accrual basis. Whether Payment of Interest accrues on day to day basis? Referring to the decision of tribunal, high-court and Supreme Court in various cases sighted
If the AO had reopened the assessment and made a disallowance and these facts could affect the outcome of the issue, the AO should appear before the FAA to file an explanation about the chronology of events. But, in any manner the subsequent decision taken by the AO cannot be held to be a mistake apparent from the record.
The assessee company rather assumed the risk of taking the liability of another company which cannot be said to be for business purpose of the assessee. Hence, the activity of advancing the money and paying the debt of the M/s. Vinedale Ltd. which was on account of purchase of machinery being capital asset, cannot be said to be the business activity
In the instant case, the assessee has proved beyond doubt that the default by him in not paying the self-assessment tax is not wilful and it was beyond his control as there was no sufficient money available with him to pay the self-assessment tax especially when the income is mainly from short term and long term capital gain.
Assessee is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. The addition was based on the basis of loan creditors found from the balance sheet already filed prior to the search along with the original return of income.
Sponsorship charges incurred by the assessee company on study of daughter of the Director of the company abroad was not held to be of Personal Nature in view of the fact that study was sponsored by the assessee-company for its business exigency. Moreover she, being a Deputy General Manager of the assessee company, has entered into an agreement with the assessee company to serve the company for at-least five years post completion of studies abroad.
It was held that it is undisputed fact that the ‘Jorhar Unit’ of the assessee did not function at all in the present year and its assets although part of block of assets are identifiable and therefore as per provision of section 38(2) of the Act, depreciation is not allowable because assets of this unit were not used for business purposes in the present year.
Lower authorities have overlooked the principle that the opening balance cannot be disturbed this year. The authorities can only reopen for the earlier year. In another case ACIT Vs. Smt. N. Sasikala (2005) 92 TTJ (Chennai) 119 it was held that If the Department doubted the availability of cash balance, it can go to the concerned assessment year 1990-91
Assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in the business of manufacturing of enameled wire, submersible wire, bare copper wire etc. Assessee filed its return of income related to AY 2009-10 declaring gross loss of (-)3.65% against the total turnover of Rs.590703526/- with net loss of Rs.36385885/-
Peak credit theory will be applicable only when there are deposits in cash and withdrawals in cash. In the instant case when the deposits are made in cash and most of the withdrawals are by way of clearing and not cash withdrawn, therefore, the theory of peak credit is not fully applicable to the facts of this case.
