CA, CS, CMA : With the introduction and the subsequent adoption of Ind AS by many Indian companies, the emphasis on valuation has increased. The...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court in case of Bharti Mishra held that section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration within one year...
Income Tax : Even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO that addition for alleged Bogus Purchase not sustainable as AO had m...
Income Tax : Pr. CIT vs. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) CUP method can be applied by a comparing a pricing formulae, r...
Income Tax : Madras High Court quashes prosecution proceedings initiated under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Impo...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court in case of Bharti Mishra held that section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration within one year...
Income Tax : Whether the usage of foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) brand name on the cars manufactured and sold by the tax payer amounted to ...
Fema / RBI : The assessee did not benchmark the royalty payment separately. On enquiry by the TPO, it relied on RBI approval given in 1995 and ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal granted 100 percent stay of demand because (a) the assessed income was more than 10 times the returned income. (Instr...
For invoking revisionary powers the Commissioner of Income Tax has to exercise his own discretion and judgment. Here the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 at the mere suggestion of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri although it has followed the Judgment of Bombay High Court as required to maintain judicial discipline.
CIT vs. Pritam Das Narang (Delhi High Court) – Amount received by prospective employee for loss of employment offer is a capital receipt and is neither taxable as salary and nor as Income From other sources.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court), ITA 83/2003, Dated-09.10.2015 Claim that notional interest on funds placed by the s. 10A eligible unit with the H.O. is allowable as a deduction to the H.O. and is exempt in the hands of the s. 10A unit is an unsustainable view.
a. Assessee had filed return of income on 27-10-2006 u/s 139(1) and original assessment was done by AO u/s 143(3) vide order dated 15.12.2008. b. Subsequently, this case was reopened u/s 147 and AO framed re-assessment order dated 31.12.2012 u/s 143 read with 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
CIT vs. AMCO Power Systems Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to carry forward and setoff of business loss despite the assessee not owning 51% voting powers in the company as per Section 79 of the Act by taking the beneficial share holding of M/s. Amco Properties & Investments Ltd.?
Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Singh Kadan that to determine whether the agricultural land is situated within 8 km of the municipal limits so as to constitute a capital asset, the distance has to be measured in terms of the approach road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow’s flight.
Delhi High Court held in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT that No disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee. Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to shares bought for strategic purposes.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Venus Jewel that Loss on account of forward contract entered into by the assessee to hedge against the loss arising on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO that Giving advance to builder constitutes ‘purchase’ of new house even if construction is not completed and title to the property has not passed to the assessee within the prescribed period.
