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...
Liability need not to always be a contractual one. On the basis of understanding between the two parties, both sides have passed necessary accounting entries. It was a genuine transaction. Since the assessee was unable to complete the SEZ it transferred the land to the sister concern IGICPL.
It is only when payments are made ‘in pursuance of a contract’ that the provisions of section 194C come to into play. The contract may be oral or written, express or implied but there must be a contract nevertheless. In the present case, however, the payment is on account of legal obligation under section 24(1) of the Punjab water Supply & Sewerage Board Act 1976
In the case of M/s Sharma East India Hospitals & Medical Research Ltd vs. DCIT, ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance out of unverifiable purchases may be restricted to 15% following the consolidated order in the cases of Sh. Anuj Kumar Varshney and ors. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 187/JP/2012
In the Case of ITO-TDS vs. BSNL, the Hyderabad Tribunal observed that the relationship between the BSNL and the franchisee was recognised by the CBDT by inserting third proviso to S.194H. The assessee being public sector undertaking stands on a different footing and the view taken by Delhi High Court
In deciding the exemption u/s 54F in the case of Sri M.S. Lakshmana Rao vs. DCIT, Hyderabad Tribunal held that non-compliance to condition of depositing sale proceeds in capital gain account scheme as required u/s 54 will not be so fatal to debar the assessee from getting benefit of section 54F.
In the case of Manikanta Concerns vs. DCIT, ITAT Hyderabad held that the shortage at the time of purchase and the shortage at the time of sale are two different issues and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that once the assessee has claimed shortage at the time of purchase
In the case of Pooja Industries vs. ITO, ITAT Chandigarh held that mere denial of deduction u/s 80IC, which the assessee has claimed on roller flour mills with a bonafide belief, would not lead to panel consequences.
