No dis allowance u/s 14A is called for in a case where the shares are held as stock-in-trade as held in India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra), CCI Ltd. v. JCIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 196 (Karn.), PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (2017) 78 taxmann.com 3 (P& H) and CIT v. G.K.K. Capital Markets (P.) Ltd. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 341 (Cal.).
Where application for registration certificate was rejected solely on the ground that trust deed did not contain the beneficiary clause; opportunity was given to assessee to make fresh application after incorporating the said clause in the trust deed.
DCIT Vs Excelex Bio Polymers (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer held that the non-compete fee cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). He took into consideration the amendment by the Finance Act, 1998 providing for allowance of depreciation on `intangible assets’ in the nature of know-how, patents, copyright, trademarks, licenses, franchises […]
Word own in s. 54F would include only the case where a residential house is fully and wholly owned by assessee and consequently would not include a residential house owned by more than one person.
A. 1 Whether Marine Consultancy Service provided to foreign ship owners constitutes composite supply with the principal supply of consultancy service? A. 2 Whether the place of supply of MCS (as a composite supply) will be determined in terms of Section 13(2)(a) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017, i.e. the ‘location of recipient of service’?
A.M. Muthiah & Anr. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Issuance of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory, and absence thereof invalidates even a reassessment made in pursuance to section 148 and reliance placed by AO on section 292BB was misplaced.
ACIT Vs Swastik Pipes Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee produced documentary evidences in support of its contention which had not been rebutted by AO and since impugned payments were in the form of reimbursement and no payments were made by assessee directly to shipping companies, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section […]
We find that the audit report was obtained within section 139(1) time limit is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the copy of audit report was furnished to the Assessing Officer as and when the Assessing Officer called for the same.
Provisions of section 50C of the Act is not applicable to the cold storage building so to substitute actual sale consideration by deemed sale consideration and the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act cannot be a subject matter of section 263.
Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s S.S. Engineers are engaged in the sale of own manufactured goods and also engaged in trading of bought out items which are used in erection, installation and commissioning of Sugar Plant and other goods falling under chapter 84 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
