1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) against the judgment dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟) in ITA No. 4125/Del/1999 in respect of assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue is aggrieved by virtue of the fact that by the impugned judgment
The assessee incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery in a textile mill and claimed the same as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was merely for replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system and did not give rise to a new asset. In the books, the expenditure was capitalized. The CIT (A), ITAT and High Court decided in favour of the assessee
In the instant case, the assessee had claimed the value of property as per the registered valuer’s report. Therefore, under clause (a) of section 55A, the Assessing Officer was required to form an opinion that the value claimed by the assessee as per the registered valuer’s report was less than the fair market value. The estimated value proposed by the DVO
Upholding the Central Information Commission (CIC) order that office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is well within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court Wednesday ruled that judges should declare their assets. In a historical judgement, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said judges are accountable but they are also subject to some constraints.
The documents were not in the name of the assessee’s factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds.
In assessment proceedings, the AO raised a query about disallowance of expenditure attributable to exempted dividend income u/s 14A. After considering the assessee’s reply, no disallowance was made u/s 14A, though interest expenditure was disallowed on the ground that it was not for business purposes. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the assessee
The undisputed fact is that return filed by the assessee on 31.7.2001 did not contain any information with respect to the amount of gifts received by the assessee in the name of his children. That return was processed under section 143(1) on 1.2.2002 and notice under section 143(2) was also issued on 14.2.2002 and compliance was required to be made on 1.4.2002 which was not made.
It is settled position of law that appeal is creature of Statute and appeal can be filed only when permitted by Statute and can be filed on the grounds mentioned In the Statute. In terms of section 260-A the High Court gets power to hear and decide an appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved. The section 260-A of the Act of 1961 thus, authorizes the High Court to hear an appeal only when substantial question of law is involved.
The applicant is a non-resident Company incorporated in United Kingdom. It is engaged in the business of information technology services. The applicant acquired the shares in Zensar Technologies Limited (for short `Zensar’), an Indian company by making payments in foreign currency between 1963 and 1994, after obtaining RBI’s approval.
Assessee is treating the securities held under the, category ‘held for maturity’ as stock-in-trade. If there is appreciation in the market value as compared to the market value at the opening of the year and such appreciation is also accounted for. It is not claiming depreciation only for the years, when the value has gone down.
