It is a settled principle of law that commission paid to persons for referring names of customers is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act for introducing potential customers to the assessee falls within the ambit of service.
Assam Company India Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) What can be deduced is that though a shell company is defined in other jurisdictions, in India there is no statutory definition of a shell company. However, in popular parlance as well as from the perspective of the Government and its agencies, […]
Loan amount which was never claimed by assessee as expenditure, waiver of same could not amount to cessation of trading liability and was not chargeable to tax under section 41(1).
The issue under consideration is whether the respondent was justified in directing the petitioner to reverse the input tax credit availed on capital goods in excess of 4% vide the impugned order?
Issue 1: Whether the scheme of the Code contemplates that the sum forming part of the resolution plan should match the liquidation value or not? Issue 2: Whether Section 12-A is the applicable route through which a successful Resolution Applicant can retreat?
Since there was no separate payment made for the purchase of software embedded in mobile phones, therefore, no TDS to be deducted under Section 195 for software embedded in mobile phones imported by assessee during the previous year.
The only issue in the appeal is the denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54 and 54F of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that, firstly, the assessee has earned capital gain and has invested the same in purchase of a residential plot; secondly, the assessee has made a total investment of Rs.63,03,005/- which is more than the exemption of Rs.52,90,424/- claimed by her
Line of judicial view is that the Revenue cannot be permitted to contend that there is a CBDT instruction No. 03/2010 dated 23/3/2010 to the contrary. No CBDT circular or instruction can be contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, even subsequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction upon AO who otherwise was not the AO of assessee, therefore, notice issued under section 148 was quashed and since reopening was quashed, subsequent orders passed on account of such reopening were also quashed.
Making of wrong claim due to inadvertent clerical error committed by Chartered Accountant could not be classified as furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) when assessee had voluntarily filed revised computation and AO had completed assessment on the basis of details furnished by assessee.
