Income Tax : Understand the impact of Section 43B(h) on businesses: Learn about deductions for MSME payments and the importance of timely payme...
Income Tax : Explore the impact of Finance Act, 2023, on MSME payment enforcement under section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand ...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of the recent Income Tax amendment to Section 43B affecting MSMEs. Understand how timely payments are cru...
Income Tax : Explore key income tax compliance requirements for charitable and educational institutions under the Income Tax Act for the assess...
Income Tax : Discover simplified taxation scheme under Section 44AD of Income Tax Act. Learn eligibility criteria, exemptions, and key insights...
Income Tax : The ITAT Bangalore ruled that income tax additions can't be based solely on unsubstantiated loose slips, emphasizing the need for ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that time limit for filing rectification applications starts only when assessee is aware of order passed, not from date ...
Income Tax : Analysis of Om Prakash Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) case reveals PCIT's jurisdiction limitations on tax issues under Land Acquisition Act ...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed analysis of Jai Parkash Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) case where the assessment jurisdiction dispute regarding interes...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court held that penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 cannot be imposed in cases, wherein, the a...
Hindustan Platinum Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Statement given u/s 131 cannot be the only basis for disallowing the claim of depreciation when it is shown with documentary evidence that the admission made in the statement recorded was under a mistake or misapprehension. Assessee is not entitled to claim loss u/s 28 on account bad debt of the advance given as inter corporate deposit without establishing the fact that it was a trade advance
Unfortunately, for the appellant NBFCs. are not covered by Section 36(l)(viia) of the I.T Act and so much so, explanation to section 36(l)(vii) squarely applies or in other words, the appellant-N. B.F.Cs. are not entitled to deduction of any Provision created for bad and doubtful debts, no matter such provision
The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that in this case interest from deposit was offered as business income and was also assessed as business income and therefore, automatically once it is assessed as business income then the same becomes eligible for deduction u/s.10B.
S. 80HHC; in favor of taxpayer: Post the amendment by Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005 (effective from 1 April 1998), controversy had arisen as to whether in case of an exporter having export turnover of more than INR100 million (where generally conditions mentioned in section 80HHC cannot be satisfied), the entire sale proceeds of DEPB need to be excluded while calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC or only profit on transfer of DEPB should be excluded.
As the facts indicate the holding company has advanced funds to the assessee company in 1998 which was received as share application money, later on transferred to unsecured loan. The amounts were utilised in investments and the incomes thereon were offered under the head ‘capital gains’ and not as ‘business income’.
Admittedly, the assessee company was dealing in Cement and also engaged in the business of dealing in shares. There is no dispute over the fact that the assessee had taken delivery of shares before selling them. The assessee company had claimed set off of unabsorbed speculation loss relating to assessment year 1995-96 and 1997-98 carried forward in the current assessment year 2003-04.
19. First we will marshal the facts of the present case. The assessee had availed terms loans from three banks, viz. ICICI Bank Ltd., Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), Hong Kong. These terms loans were availed by the assessee company for the purpose of acquiring capital assets necessarily to be deployed in the manufacturing system
