Therefore, since the writ petitions are now dismissed and liberty has been granted to approach the Department, the petitioners granted four weeks time to approach the concerned authority under the provisions of the Act seeking for appropriate remedy. Till such time, the respondents shall not initiate
When an assessee purchases the spare parts for the existing machineries, same cannot be treated as capital expenditure and it has to be treated as revenue expenditure since these spare parts are purchased for the maintenance of the existing equipments.
On plain reading of above section, we find that certain expenditures are not allowable if the assessee failed to deduct tax or after deduction same was not paid in time. However, such expenditures are allowable Provided that where in respect of any such sum. Tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted
Does the purpose of a trust restrict spending the income of a profitable activity exclusively or primarily upon what is `charity’ in law? If the profits must necessarily feed a charitable purpose, under the terms of the trust, the mere fact that the activities of the trust yield profit will not alter the charitable character of trust
From the above facts, it is clear that Once the society during a period of almost 12 years has not carried out any activity, except purchasing land, to construct school/college building for imparting education, which was the main object of the society the activities of the trust for granting approval under section 80G cannot be called genuine and the CIT was fully justified in refusing to grant approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act. Hence, the order of Commissioner of Income-tax is upheld and consequently the remaining grounds of appeal taken by the appellant society stand rejected.
For the aforestated reasons, we hold that AAD is a timing difference, it is not a reserve, it is not carried though profit and loss account and that it is “income received in advance” subject to adjustment in future and, therefore, clause (b) of Explanation- I to Section 115JB is not applicable. | Accordingly, the impugned ruling is set aside
The Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL42-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of CIT v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (Taxpayer) which held that the difference between forward rate and exchange rate prevailing on the date of entering into forward contracts is fully allowable as deduction even if the
CIT v. Bhagwati Steels -(Punjab & Haryana HC) -In the instant case, it was held that the payment of freight charges by the assessee to the truck drivers was based on individual GRs which represented individual and separate contracts and there was no single contract for carriage or transportation of goods referred to between assessee and the impugned parties which would make the assessee liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act.
Delhi High Court (HC) in the case of CIT v NIIT Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-533-HC-DEL-IT], on the issue of whether the amount paid by the Taxpayer to the franchisees, pursuant to a franchises agreement (Agreement), can be considered in the nature of rent, for the purpose of tax deduction at source (TDS) under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
In AY 2002-03, the assessee suffered a long-term capital loss. U/s 74(1) as it then stood, such loss could be carried forward and set off against all capital gains including short-term capital gains. S. 74 was amended in AY 2003-04 to provide that long-term capital loss could only be set-off against long-term capital gains and not against short-term-capital gain
