Whether Bottling Of Gas Into Cylinder Amounts To Production For Claiming Of Deduction Under Sections 80HH, 80-I And 80-IA Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether an activity constitutes production or manufacture for the purposes of sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has remained point of dispute in many cases.
Writ Petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to issue an interim order, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to file IT returns through e-filing or through Manual Filing without insisting on Aadhar number / Enrollment No., pending […]
Kailash Assudani Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High court) A plain reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 makes it clear that the adjudicating authority is obliged to examine the stand of alleged Benamindar in reply to the show cause notice. He is further obliged to make further […]
Proceedings under Section 148 of the Act which commenced with the notice dated 3rd April, 2012 issued to VBPPL were itself void ab initio for the simple reason that on that day VBPPL was not in existence as a result of the order dated 20th February, 2013 of the High Court approving its amalgamation with the Petitioner with effect from 1st April, 2012. The question of revival of such proceedings at a later point in time, with there being no change to the legal position regarding VBPPL having ceased to exist, does not arise.
Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the Appellate Authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims. The Appellate Authorities have jurisdiction to deal with additional grounds, which were available when the return was filed.
The Tribunal has been given power to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period as per Section 253(5). However, this Tribunal is not enshrined with such powers in respect of a miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. If we are not given that power, then it is not expected from us to exercise such power which is not provided in the Act.
The findings of the Disciplinary Committee by no stretch of imagination can be said to be binding on the criminal court where the accusation is to be proved on the basis of evidence adduced before it in accordance with law. Moreover, the findings do not render the substratum of accusation of conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused persons in extending unjustified financial assistance to the borrowers in the instant case patently absurd or inherently improbable
CIT (Appeals) in a detailed judgement, reversed the order of the Assessing Officer holding that if at all the transaction was held to be sham, the additions can be made in the case of the firm and not the partners.
A bare reading of sections 54 and 54F of the Act nowhere states that the surplus remaining after claiming deduction under section 54/54F on account of construction of house property undertaken in a year, would not be allowed set off against long-term capital gain earned in the succeeding year.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s.Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd has allowed a tenants’ claim for depreciation towards capital expenditure incurred on the leased premises.
