Since the assessee’s profit and loss account showed only one item of expenditure which had been booked in the accounts and there was no exempt income earned by the assessee, the question of disallowance under section 14A did not arise.
In re Vservglobal Private Limited (GST AAR Maharastra) The applicant is registered person under GST ACT who is supplier of Services, which is a corporate entity incorporated in India and having its registered office in Mumbai. The orders for supply of said services are received in its Mumbai office and also services are executed from […]
This intra-court appeal is directed against an order dated 28.08.2017, wherein and whereby a learned single Judge of this Court had dismissed a writ petition in which a notice dated 16.08.2017, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961, was assailed. To be noted, order of the learned single Judge is a common order in two writ petitions, but this judgment deals with the order in W.P.No.22978 of 2017 alone.
M/s. Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs PR. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that CIT has invoked his power u/s.263 to examine the land development charges paid by the assessee to Smt. Sumitraben Chauhan. From the […]
In the present case, the Commissioner does not speak of absence of a written constitution. The appellant also asserts that the constitution of the Generalate regulates the Houses also, which come under the Generalate. The Tribunal also found that the appellant comes under the exclusive control of the Generalate through the hierarchies as disclosed from the constitution and there could be no separate registration granted to the Convent.
When a Company issues FCCB, it incurs a liability to pay a larger amount than what is borrowed and such higher amount payable by the Company will be for the purpose of its business in order to generate funds for its business activities. The amounts so obtained are used by the Company for the purposes of its business. Hence the liability to pay the additional amount would therefore be revenue expenditure.
HC held that Before parting, we have to note that we have come across series of orders passed by the same Assistant Commissioner wherein reassessment proceedings are initiated after the period of four years and the reasons supplied and the actions taken are not in consonance with the settled law. We request the learned Standing Counsel to supply compilation of the above referred judgments to the concerned Commissioner.
Personal information like T.A. bill etc. cannot be directed to be given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act.
With regard to interest u/s 234C of the Act , it is levied for deferment of payment of advance tax for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In the instant case, since, the cash was seized after the expiry of the previous year i.e. after 31.03.2011, the assessee cannot claim non-chargeability of interest u/s 234C on that account. Hence, interest u/s 234C of the Act is leviable in this case.
Action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct and the AO erred in adopting the Indian bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australian currency and as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australian Dollar. Therefore, applying the ratio laid by the Hon’ble High Courts discussed above, we hold that there was no necessity of any arm’s length adjustment in this case
