Mitchell Drilling India Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is elementary that the ALP is determined of an `international transaction’, which has been defined in section 92B of the Act. The term `transaction’, for the purposes of the Chapter–X containing transfer pricing provisions, has been defined in clause (v) of section 92F to include an […]
There is a mistake of getting the information through AIR which was collected by the appellant’s AR from bank. The transaction reported in the AIR was wrongly reported by the department. The AO should inform DGIT(System) to verify such information from the department server and correct it in future.
By adopting the principles of harmonious construction and interpretation of rule, I hold that the appellant right to avail the credit at the time of coming out of the exemption scheme cannot be curtailed down by adopting Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
When admittedly there is no capital creation with the loan facilities availed of by the assessee, the working capital overdraft facility cannot be kept under the category of capital expenses, rather working capital overdraft facility is oftenly used to run day-to-day business
Whether penalty under section 271B of the Act could be levied in a case where the books of account were maintained by the assessee. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in that case held that where no account has been maintained, section 271B does not get attracted and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken.
Shri Kshitiz Arya Vs Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd (Competition Commission of India) It is observed that the releasing of a movie is a strategic and tactical business decision taken by the producers. The makers of a film have to consider a lot of factors before releasing the movies for distribution such as market targeting, branding […]
This appeal by assessee under section 253 of income tax act is directed against the order of Director of Income tax (Exemptions) Mumbai, dated 22 November 2011 for assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal
In ‘CIT vs. Chandra Narain Chaudhri’ (supra), it was also held that the Stamp Valuation Authority does not take into consideration the attributes of the property, such as encumbrance, for determining the fair market value in case, as in the present one, it is offered for sale and is purchased.
Section 69B cannot be invoked on the assumption that there was understatement of the investment, without a finding that the assessee invested more than what was recorded in the books of account.
ITO Vs M/s. Sugarchem (ITAT Mumbai) The AO in the course of assessment proceedings requested the assessee to furnish the reasons why no TDS was deducted in respect of transportation charges. The assessee furnished PAN details of the transporters to the tune of 67,24,412/- out of 80,23,971/- in respect of nine transporters referred to in […]
