Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
CA, CS, CMA : Discover the major changes in ITR forms for FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-2025). Highlights include new sections for retirement benefit acco...
Income Tax : Tax planning while setting up of a business with reference to location (2021-2022 A.Y, A.Y 2022-2023 , A.Y 2023-2024 and A.Y 202...
Income Tax : Recently, I was approached by a Builder Group seeking a number of clarifications, in respect of the incentive granted U/S 80-IB(10...
Income Tax : Whether nearby cities which are in 25 km from municipality are to be considered at par with metro cities for FY 2016-17? Solution:...
Income Tax : The office of the Comptroller & Auditor General (C & AG) conducts compliance as well as performance audit relating to specific are...
Income Tax : The CBDT did not have any established mechanism to assess the impact of revenue foregone on account of deduction under section 80 ...
Income Tax : Industry chamber Assocham today asked the government to re-introduce the tax exemption scheme to promote affordable housing in the...
Income Tax : Section 80-IB (10) of the Act is aimed at promoting construction of housing projects, so as to address the problem of shortage of ...
Income Tax : Sushanto Roy, CEO, Sahara Prime City, has in a pre-Budget wish list of expectations said: "Given the pent-up demand for affordable...
Income Tax : The dispute concerned whether deduction under Section 80IB should be reduced by the amount already allowed under Section 80HHC. IT...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that there is no provision under the Income-tax Act allowing substitution of the actual cost of land with its fa...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the facts relating to delayed revised return in Shriram Investments were distinguishable and therefore did ...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT Restricts Corporate Guarantee Fee to 0.30% After Finding Actual Interest Saving Was Only 0.60%; Holds TP Adjustment Mus...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before cal...
Income Tax : It is a settled position that revenue subsidies received from the Government towards reimbursement of cost of production/manufactu...
Income Tax : Notification No. 2/2011 - Income Tax In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Rev...
Income Tax : Notification No. 01/2011- Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (10) of section 80-...
Income Tax : Notification No. 67/2010 - Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (10)...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 4/2009, dated 30-6-2009 Under sub-section (10) of section 80-IB an undertaking developing and building housing pro...
Requirement of filing audit report alongwith return of income is procedural in nature and audit report filed at the assessment stage shall be construed as sufficient compliance of the same for claiming deduction u/s 80IB.
The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in construction business which was subject to a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act on 06.10.2009. In the course of search, Shri Rajesh Malpani, partner of the assessee firm in a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 03.12.2009
Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the instant case, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act for all the years which were disallowed by the AO on the ground that as per provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act the computation of deduction has to be done by setting off of brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business against their respective eligible incomes.
Liberty India (supra) was a case of non-operational subsidy inasmuch as the subsidy, provided in Liberty India (supra), did not relate to production; whereas the subsidies, in the present set of cases, are operational in nature inasmuch as the subsidies are related to the production
AO denied deduction u/s 80-IB(10) only on the ground that assessee engaged in business of construction had adopted ‘Project completion method’ instead of ‘Percentage completion method’ as prescribed under AS-7 (Revised). The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was no allegation to the effect that on account of “Project completion method” adopted by the assessee, its profit for any particular year was distorted. Further, the assessee had followed the same system consistently for a long period of time. It was thus held that assessee must be allowed deduction u/s 80-IB(10).
Whether the expenditure incurred by a unit can be reallocated to another unit engaged in job work and claiming deduction u/s 80IA and 80IB, as the case may be, merely because the profits were significantly higher than profits earned by the assessee from other units.
Tribunal relying on its decision in case of Radhe Developers v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 420 (Ahd.) held that respondent assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the housing project development though the assessee may not be the owner of the land.
Issue pertains to deduction claim by the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act on development of a housing project. Revenue, however, holds a belief that the respondent-assessee had not developed the housing project on the ground that the land was not owned by the assessee. The Tribunal, however, held that as per the development agreement, the assessee had to incur and bear all expenses for development of the land. The assessee had the right to allot possession of the constructed units to the members of the housing project after developing the housing project. The Tribunal relied on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Radhe Developers [2012] 341 ITR 403 in which this Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
In this case, assessee was carrying on business of conversion of Jumbo Rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in desired sizes. It claimed deduction under secs. 80-HH and 80-I as well as investment allowance under sec. 32AB. The controversy arose whether conversion of jumbo rolls into small sizes amounts to manufacture or production, eligible for deduction under sec. 32AB or deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961/ Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that this activity amounts to manufacture or production.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited. The reopening of assessments in the instant case is decidedly before the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, so that the first proviso to s. 147 is not applicable.
