The assessee, a co-op credit society, was engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and also marketing the agricultural produce of its members. The assessee had surplus funds which it invested in short-term deposits with banks and govt securities. The question arose whether the said interest earned on the said deposits was “business profits”
ITAT Ruling: The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot exceed his limitation by following any method to determine the arm’s length price which is not authorized by the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Rules [CA Computer Associates Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT (2010-TIOL-68-ITAT-MUM)].
The issue before the SB was that, while computing the amounts eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL), whether the losses of an undertaking of the Taxpayer which is not eligible for tax holiday (Non-eligible Undertaking), are required to be set off against the profits of another undertaking of the Taxpayer which is eligible for tax holiday (Eligible Undertaking)
The Tribunal, first and foremost, is duty bound by Article 141 of the Constitution of India to ensure that it follows binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal as a judicial body must follow principles of consistency when it decides cases. The lack of consistency is clear on the face of record. Judicial orders must be passed by the Tribunal
We have carefully perused the show cause notice which was common to all the six entities including the appellant who were alleged to have acted in concert with each other in the acquisition of the shares of the target company. Apart from making a bald assertion in para S of that notice that all the notices were acting in concert, there is nothing else in the show cause notice to suggest that the appellant was acting in concert with the other notices.
Explore the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on bad debt write-offs post-April 1, 1989. Assessing officers must consider the write-off in company accounts.
In respect of AY 2003-04, the assessee had an unit in Chennai which was engaged in software development and whose profits were eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The assessee had another unit in Delhi which was engaged in trading and had suffered a loss. The assessee claimed that it was eligible for a deduction u/s 10A
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and connected, and these appeals were heard together, these are being consolidated and disposed of together by this common order.
The admitted position before the Court, on the basis of the material on the record, is that by the notice under Section 148 issued on 30th November 2009, the assessment pertaining to the year 2002 03 was sought to be reopened after the lapse of four years. Section 147 postulates inter alia that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe
We have heard the arguments put forth by both the sides along with the case law relied upon. Having held above that the interest on income-tax refund does not fall under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’, it remains to be examined as to whether deduction u/s.80P is restricted only to the income falling under this head
