ABB Limited (applicant), an Indian company, has various business divisions such as power products and systems, automation systems, process automation and robotics systems. The appellant is a part of the ABB Group, which is a leader in power and automation technologies that enable utility and industry customers to improve performance while lowering environmental impact.
Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC provides that 90% of interest, rent etc has to be reduced from the “Profits & gains” for purposes of s. 80HHC. In Lalsons Enterprises 89 ITD 25, the Special Bench of the Tribunal held that in computing the said interest, rent etc, the assessee was permitted to net off the interest receipt against the interest expenditure
The only reason which has been given seeking reopening of the assessment for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 is that suppression of sales have taken place on account of the fact that when average price of the closing stock is multiplied with the quantity of the sales in the year then the value of the sales would be at a higher figure than that as declared by the assessee.
It is a settled principle that the power of levying penalty or not is discretionary and not mandatory. The law requires that whenever the AO is to exercise his discretion then it is the AO alone who is to exercise that discretion and the appellate authority cannot exercise that discretion on the part of the AO.
Western Maharashtra Development Corpn. Ltd vs. Bajaj Auto Limited [MANU/MH/0109/ 2010]. In a decision, which is likely to have a wide impact on joint ventures/ investment in public companies, the Bombay High Court (“Court”) has recently held that any clause in an agreement which restricts the free transferability of shares of public companies is void and non- enforceable
In our opinion, the Section 269SS and 271D are not applicable to the fact of the case since the assessee in this case received back the money in cash and not advanced money or accepted the loan in cash. The penalty In this case cannot be levied u/s 271D of the Act. for receiving the cash from the borrower, by the assessee.
Provisions of s. 124(3) are self- explanatory. No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Undisputedly, assessee did not raise this issue either after the expiry of one month from the date
A bare reading of s. 2(28A) would reveal that interest is payable in respect of ‘moneys borrowed’ or ‘debt incurred’. It, of course, would include a deposit, claim or other similar right or application of any service fee or other charges in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred. All the subscribers/ members of the chit contribute moneys each month and bid takes place among the members.
In respect of AY 2004- 05, the assessee computed its book profits u/s 115JB by claiming a deduction for provision for doubtful debts and advances and the same was allowed vide order u/s 143 (3). On 18.07.2008 (within 4 years), the AO issued a notice u/s 148 inter alia on the ground that the provision for doubtful debts had to be added back to the book profits.
CIT Vs Himgiri Foods Limited (Gujarat High Court)- On a plain reading of section 143(1B) it is apparent that the provision mandates that if after the issuance of intimation, a revised return is furnished by an assessee under sub-section (5) section 139 it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to process the revised return and amend the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a)
