The appellant/assessee, which is a HUF, sold its agricultural land for Rs.14,28,400/ – in September, 1995 giving rise to a long term capital gain of Rs.9,67,412/ -. The assessee claimed that the capital gain be not charged as it was entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The crux of the matter is: what is the meaning to be ascribed to the expression used for the purposes of the business as found in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of Section 32 pertains to depreciation. The contention of the Revenue is that with respect to any machinery for which depreciation is claimed under Section 32,
It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy; therefore, the High Court can entertain the plea whether the writ is maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, even after the writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was ordered
The land which falls within the exception of `urban land’ would have to be excluded from the ambit and scope of expression `urban land’ and, such land would not be covered by the expression `assets’ as defined in section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; consequently, such land would not be treated as net wealth of an assessee for the purposes of provisions of the Act.
PICK-UP and drop transport facility provided by employers is not a perquisite and hence not liable to tax, according to a recent ruling by a tax tribunal. In a decision that has implications for the sectors such as BPO and IT, the Mumbai Income-Tax Apellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that companies providing such a facility were not liable to deduct tax on the expenditure incurred on it.
Question Nos. 10 and 11 pertain to assessee’s challenge against levy of interest under section 234B of the Act for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. RANCHI CLUB LTD., 247LT.R, 209 and decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. INCHCAPE INDIA (P) LTD.,
Even though standing counsel for the department contended that if the Director of Lottery has made unauthorised deduction it is for the assessee to pursue his remedy elsewhere, we do not think that the assessee can be expected to recover this amount through the litigation against the State Government On the other hand we feel that if the State Government is recovering income tax and retains it for itself payment to the Central Government
The entire focus in the present appeal is to decide whether the returns filed by the assessee were valid or invalid or defective. Whereas the AO, on observing that the return was not properly verified in as much as it was not signed by the right person, declared it to be invalid and non-est. He further intimated the assessee vide para 5 of his communication dated 11.1.2000 that the act of wrong verification is not a rectifiable defect u/s 139(9) which provides that removal of any defect of a valid return of income.
The definition of input brings within its fold, inputs used for generation of electricity or steam, provided such electricity or steam is used within the factory of production for manufacture of final products or for any other purpose.
The assessee, an employee of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) India, received from J&J, USA, on 12.7.1989 a “cashless” option to buy 2500 shares at the then prevailing market price of $ 57.88 per share. The options were exercisable in installments over 10 years starting 11.7.1991. On 13.8.1992 (AY 1993-94), the assessee ‘sold’ the options and made a gain of Rs. 5,44,925
