Assessee was in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property was not the exclusive business of assessee, therefore, the rental income earned by assessee was rightly treated as income under the head ‘House Property’ instead of ‘business income’.
Assessee had developed shopping mall on a property owned by it and by providing host of services/facilities amenities in the said mall and as such, basic intention of assessee was commercial exploitation of its property by developing it as shopping malls, therefore, income earned by assessee from letting out various shops/stalls in shopping malls constructed by it had to be treated as business income and not as income from house property.
Expenses on medical camps organized with tea and snacks, ball pens, purchased for distribution to Doctors and Hospitals, with logo of the assessee company, organizing cardiac camps, Doctors meetings for various products for awareness of their product were only on account of business promotion expenses which were allowable under the provisions of section 37 the I.T. Act.
Assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be held as bogus on the ground of information from Investigation Wing in case assessee had filed evidences like transaction statement of stock broker, contract notes transactions statement of Demat acount, statement of account from brokers, and bank statement, etc., to prove genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares.
Amount paid to foreign lawyer by assessee for representing its case before foreign court was not taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) in India as legal services could not be treated as FTS as it was a professional services which was outside the scope of Section 9(1)(vii).
Saraf Natural Stone Vs UOI (Gujarat High Court) After implementation of GST, refund on exports got substantially delayed to most of the exporters resulting into blockage of working capital and harming the business of exporter community. In a recent Judgement delivered by The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Matter of M/s. Saraf Natural Stone Vs […]
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10th December, 2018 of Ld. Member and Adjudicating Officer, MahaRERA as modified by order dated 11th March, 2019 pursuant to Review Application filed by Appellant in Complaint Nos. SC10000672 & SC10000691.
M. K. Traders Vs UOI (Gujarat High Court) Conveyance and the goods came to be detained applying the provisions of Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Thus, the position as on date is that the confiscation proceedings are in progress. We are only concerned, as on date, with the issue, whether […]
Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) For the reasons assigned in the Special Civil Application No.15925 of 2018, decided on 10/07/2019, this writapplication is allowed to the extent that the writ applicants are entitled to the interest for the delayed payment at the rate of 9% per annum. The authority […]
Where there was an option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the ‘NAV Method’, AO had no jurisdiction to discard the valuation report of the CA mainly on the ground that valuation of equity shares carried out by assessee was based on projection of revenue which did not match with the actual revenues of the subsequent years. Moreover, top and independent investors had invested in assessee’s start-up proved that the FMV as determined by assessee was proper.
