Vodafone Idea Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) 1. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the Income Tax Authorities for releasing the refund of Rs. 43.25 Crores (rounded off) with applicable interest pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-2014. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on […]
Since there was no diversion of sale proceeds by overriding title, but on the contrary, there was only a mere application of the sale proceeds realised on sale of plots towards the discharge of outstanding loan liability of assessee thus
The expense incurred for getting the finance for normal business operations does not provide any enduring benefit to the assessee as such, the one-time loan processing fees was revenue expenditure allowable to assessee.
M/s. Cornerview Construction & Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Now, coming to the primary contention of the learned Authorised Representative that all the transactions relating to purchase of flats should be taken as a single transaction for the purpose of filing the IDS statement and computing fee under section 234E of the Act, […]
D. K. Shivakumar Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court) While dealing with the bail application, it is not in dispute that three factors have to be seen viz. i) flight risk, ii) tampering evidence iii) influencing witnesses. Regarding the flight risk, neither argued by learned Additional Solicitor General nor placed any material on record, […]
ITAT held that Satellite transmission services provided by USA based company in India could not be brought to tax by treating the same as royalty income and amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a retrospective or prospective effect, cannot be read in a manner so as to extend the operation to the terms of international treaty.
Depreciation on non-compete fee was allowable @ 25% by treating it as an intangible asset under Section 32 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
A perusal of financial statement, bank statements and income tax returns of share applicants companies clearly revealed that they had no regular means to invest in the share capital of the assessee company and, therefore, AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on the ground of lack of creditworthiness and genuineness.
Merely because an assessee makes an extraordinary profit, it would not lead to the conclusion that same was organized/arranged for that the onus remains undischarged by AO, except for presence of suspicious circumstances, as such adjustments made by the AO scaling down the deduction under section 10AA, was, therefore, without sanction of law.
Assessee filed details of statement showing provision for mark to market loss and also submitted a detailed note on mark to market loss on outstanding position. Assessee submitted that it had made provisions for loss following accepted accounting principles as per the Guidance Note on ‘Accounting for Equity Index & Equity Stock Futures and Options’ issued by ICAI and claimed the loss as deductable business expenditure.
