Income Tax : Understand Section 43 of the IBC, covering preferential transactions, antecedent debt, look-back periods for related and unrelated...
Income Tax : Learn about taxation on derivatives and F&O transactions, their treatment as business income, audit requirements, and presumptive ...
Income Tax : Explore conflicting rulings on whether bonafide mistakes in disclosing foreign assets under the Black Money Act can avoid penaltie...
Income Tax : F&O traders need to know how their profits are taxed. With the ITR return filing date approaching, it is imperative to know how st...
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 : ITAT held that goodwill arising on amalgamation qualifies as a depreciable intangible asset. It also deleted the TP adjustment on ...
Income Tax : ITAT upheld taxation of IPS and CEV subsidies following the Section 2(24) amendment, while partly allowing the appeal on other iss...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that Rule 11UA gives the assessee the exclusive option to choose the valuation method for unquoted shares. While...
Income Tax : The ITAT Kolkata held that electricity supplied by captive power plants should be benchmarked using the tariff charged by State El...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act could not be imposed when foreign assets were subsequentl...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
Income Tax : Notification No. 15/2014-Income Tax entral Government hereby notifies the Ace Derivatives and Commodity Exchange Limited, Ahmedaba...
Thus we find, if the functional test for a plant enunciated by Apex Court and jurisdictional court in their decisions referred to supra is applied to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that roads, flyovers bridges etc., constructed and owned by the assessee and utilised in its business of
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench (SB) of Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. (Taxpayer) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1294 (Kol) of 2008) in which the SB held that, prior to financial year 2005-06 (assessment year 2006-07), derivative transactions in shares were covered by the definition of speculative transactions (ST). The SB further held that the exception to the definition of ST, from tax year 2005-06, in respect of eligible derivative transactions carried out on recognized stock exchanges, is not clarificatory in nature and does not have a retrospective effect for earlier years.
Recently, the Special Bench of the Kolkata Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-542-ITAT-KOL-SB) while dealing with a case prior to the amendment to section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) exempting derivative transaction as speculative in nature, held that the derivative transactions will be considered as speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Act. Further, it was also held that the above referred amendment to section 43(5) of the Act is perspective in nature and comes into effect from Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.
After careful consideration of1 above provisions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the stand of the Revenue. As noted above actual cost should ordinarily mean real cost or real worth of assets. If it is not market value, then what is it? Mechanism to take W.D.V as provided in Explanation 2 to Section 43(6)(c) is not available in Explanation 3 o auction 43(1). Further, assets whose actual cost is to be determined under Explanation 3 are second hand and it is always difficult to find actual cost or value of such assets as compared to new assets. In the case of transf
SRF Ltd. v. DCIT, (ITAT Delhi) In the present case it is seen that the liability was discharged by way of issuance of shares. When the assessee issues shares the assessee does not incur any expenditure as the assessee is not to make any payment legally towards shares issued. The shares cannot be equated with debentures, which is purely by way of loan and the same are required to be repaid on maturity.
As can be seen from the above the adjustment made by the assessee is according to the provisions of the Act. Since both the industrial galas fall within the block the WDV is increased by the actual cost of the asset falling within the block and reduced by the amount payable in respect of the asset sold. Accordingly we do not find any mistake in assessee’s working of the block of assets which is according to the provisions of section 43(6)(c). The A.O.’s action in denying the inclusion of asset within the block is on the condition that the asset was not put to use.
. The undisputed facts are that the assessee had plant and machinery already existing prior to the receipt of finance from Wipro Finance Ltd. It is apparent from the chart of payment referred to by the learned AR of the assessee. This clearly indicates that the loan was not given directly or indirectly for the purpose of purchasing plant and machinery.
The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term “Written Down Value” reads as under :-
Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Export oriented undertaking – Assessment year 2003-04 – Assessee-company was engaged in business of contract research and in providing of laboratory facility to its parent company in USA – It had claimed exemption under section 10B – Assessing Officer observed that assessee was not manufacturing or exporting anything, as it was simply providing services of laboratory
So far as the contention with regard to the disallowing the claim on the expenditure incurred on the purchase of two machineries is concerned, the counsel for the Revenue has urged that though with respect to the first machinery an advance payment was made within the Assessment year, with respect to the second machinery no payment at all was made.
