Braganza Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is that Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the said amount of Rs.80 lakhs is deemed to be unexplained expenditure under proviso, to section 69C, of the IT Act, without […]
Baiju A. A. Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) (i) the assessments in respect of which the period of limitation for re-opening under Section 25 of the KVAT Act was to expire by 31.03.2017 can be re-opened up to 31.03.2018 by virtue of the amendment to the third proviso to Section 25 (1) vide […]
Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) In the present case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for CGST that since the tax was paid, Section 73 (1) of the Act shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the tax was not paid […]
The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax wants the Assessing officer to look into various other issues of the assessee which were not covered within the purview of the
If the A.O. has taken up the issue of determining fair market value of the property in question as on 01/4/1981 without converting the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny by taking the prior approval of the competent authority then the said order passed by the A.O. will be nullity as beyond his jurisdiction.
AO has obtained the necessary approval from the Competent Authority for conversion of the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny. Accordingly, the issue which is taken up by the AO in the proceedings under section 154 is illegal and void being beyond his jurisdiction to frame the limited scrutiny assessment.
Genpact India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Supreme Court) Section 115QA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates that in case of buy back of shares referred to in the provisions of said Section, the company shall be liable to pay additional income tax at the rate of 20% on the distributed income. Any determination in […]
We are of the view that the company having occupied the property for its own purposes, no notional rent can be added. It may be germane to mention here that this is the only property owned and occupied by the assessee as its registered office. It is not the case of the AO that the assessee company was having some other premises to have its office. A company having been incorporated is legally required to have its registered office irrespective of the fact whether during the year it has carried on any activity or not.
ACIT Vs Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Let us appreciate the nature of development, from the treaty perspective, in case one is to hold that the retrospective amendments defining the expression ‘process’ would be equally applicable for definition of ‘royalties’ under the tax treaty. Thus viewed, situation could be like this. There are judicial […]
Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) As we have already held that the receipt on the sale of carbon credits is liable to be treated as capital receipts, admittedly, the expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the sale of the carbon credits cannot be treated as Revenue expenditure at all. […]
