As the actor Shilpa Shetty was a brand ambassador for IPL team Rajasthan Royals, she was bound to render certain services without any charge to subsidiary company JIPL owned by holding company of her husband and assessee did not receive any consideration for the services rendered to JICPL, in the absence of any ‘price’, the provision of services could not be considered as an ‘international transaction under sec. 92(1).
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Though assessee had not become owner of property in question because there was no registered sale deed executed by vendor, however, becoming the owner of the property in question was not required for the purpose of section 54/54F and, therefore, no deduction could be denied to assessee.
Requirement of section 54 in the second limb is that capital gain should be used in construction of residential house and nothing more. Assessee in the instant case was the owner of super-structure constructed by utilizing capital gain and it was clear from the lease deed by which land over which construction had been put up was given on lease to assessee, therefore, deduction under sections 54 could not be disallowed.
Delhi High Court rules Customs can’t proceed against legal heirs of a deceased assessee. Details of the case Amandeep Singh Sehgal vs Commissioner of Customs.
The issue under consideration is if Assessee remained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex-parte order?
M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (Supreme Court of India) A reading of Section 8(1) of the CST Act would show that classification is contained in the Central Act itself which treats sale to a registered dealer outside the State in one category and sale to an unregistered dealer […]
Shri Devasamparambil Hassainar Kutty Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Revenue has not disputed the fact that the FDRs taken by the assessee are for the purpose of furnishing the security/guarantee to the companies those have awarded the contract to the assessee. Therefore, these FDRs were furnished as a performance guarantee by the assessee. Once the FDRs […]
Where non-resident agents appointed by assessee for procuring export orders did not have permanent establishment in India and their activities as commission agents are being carried out outside India, merely because a portion of the sale to the overseas purchasers took place in India, would not make assessee liable to deduct tax at source under section 195.
Where the existing company acquired all the assets and liabilities of the partnership firms in the manner as provided under section 47(xiii) then the same would not be considered as transfer and there was no requirement under the provisions of section 47(xiii) that the firms should be converted into the company.
