This appeal by the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No.1044/CIT(A)-20/CC-1(1)/15-16 dated 25.07.2016 against the order passed by the ACIT, CC-1(1), Kolkata
Betterman Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case the assessee has acquired certain fixed assets on lease and has charged depreciation on the same. The assets being the godown building, office building, power house building, Weigh Bridge room and machinery. The ld. AO on the basis of the statement made by […]
The fact that the consent application proposed by the Respondent was accepted by SEBI also on the footing that the Respondent has paid the settlement “without admitting or denying the charges” indicates that the SEBI was not unaware of the outcome of its case against the Respondent. There is no reason to believe or infer that consent application without admitting guilt amounts to evidence of an offence having been committed.
The AO was of the view that as per the provision of section 80AC of the Act any deduction under Chapter-VI A of the Act (Sec. 80IA of the Act is part of Chapter VIA of the Act) can be claimed only if the return of income for the relevant assessment year is filed on or before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with the aforesaid conditions, the AO refused to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.
The adjudication proceedings on the goods detained / seized should be completed expeditiously as the law itself provides for release of goods on fulfilment of prescribed condition.
We are of the view that the ULIP surrender charges are not part of taxable service of management of funds. Rather it is in the nature of penalty or liquidated damages which is not a service and hence cannot be made liable for tax during the period involved .
Supreme Court has in the case of PCIT Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia upheld the Gujarat high Court Order and dismissed the special leave petition filed by Department on the issue of deletion of Addition for Bogus Purchases. Text of the High Court Judgment in TAX APPEAL NO. 691 of 2017 dated: 18 September, 2017 is […]
Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Narang Overseas Pvt Ltd vs ACIT reported in 111 ITD 1 (Mum ITAT ) (SB) had held that mesne profits received by assessee for wrongful deprivation of use and occupation of property constitutes capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax. Respectfully following the same , we hold that the ld CITA had rightly granted relief to the assessee by holding that the receipt of Rs 90 lacs by the assessee is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
Asstt. STO Vs Indus Towers Ltd. (Kerala High Court) In the present case the delivery chalan which accompanied the transport is one issued by the assessee respondent, over which the assessee has absolute control and could be subject to manipulation. The assessee having transported the goods with delivery chalan, could very well sell the goods […]
In one of the recent judgment of Kerala High Court in M/S Indus Towers Limited Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer, it was held that goods cannot be confiscated for every non- compliance of the provisions of the act.
