Provision for Gratuity was an ascertained liability eligible to be deducted from the net profit for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
The claim of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act was denied by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 (supra). The Tribunal in the above case had held that the assessee’s activities of micro finance was not charitable in nature and was not entitled to the claim of benefit u/s 11 of the I.T.Act.
Penalty was leviable on assessee for contravention of provisions of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) by imposing unfair conditions upon the buyers under Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) and for abusing dominant position.
Addition of long-term capital gain against an investor who invested in a penny stock company in connection with the penny stock scam involving Rs. 36,000 Crores was upheld as additions made on account of detailed enquiries being carried out by Kolkata Investigation Directorate with regard to 84 penny stocks company as well as SEBI and no new facts or circumstances had been placed on record by assessee and the orders passed by the revenue authorities had also gone unrebutted.
Thus, it is seen that there is actually no sale of property by the assessees before us and the Sale Deed has been executed by the original owners through GPA holders to the children of assessees. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no transfer of property by the assessees in fact it is acquisition of property by the assessees in the names of their children and it is not the case of transfer or gain on sale of property.
PCIT Vs Electro Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) The issue under consideration is whether interest on deposits/securities, which strictly speaking accrues to the members’ account, could be taxed as business income under section 28 of Income Tax Act, 1961? Supreme Court said, such interest income would come in the category of income […]
The issue under consideration is that confirming the addition made u/s 68 by A.O. in respect of the loan taken from father of the appellant on mere suspicion.
In re Liberty Translines (GST AAR Maharashtra) The second question raised by the applicant is whether Applicant would be right in charging GST @12% under Forward Charge mechanism to POSCO in terms of Notification No 20/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 2017 dated 22 August, 2017 when POSCO as the main contractor is already charging GST @12% under the […]
In re Gaurish Sharma (G K Enterprises) (GST AAR Rajasthan) Applicant is proposing to submit a bid for shifting / erection of electrical lines only to M/s Sadbhav Jodhpur Ring Road Pvt. Ltd who is the main Contractor of NHAI. Thus the activity to be carried out by the applicant is restricted to shifting / […]
The issue under consideration is whether the order for provincial attachment of bank accounts against bogus billing and fake generation of E-Way bills without the actual physical movement of goods is justified in law?
