Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs GKK Capital Markets (P)Ltd 392 ITR 196 (Calcutta) has taken a view that the shares held as stock in trade and the expenses in relation to shares so held cannot be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision and the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case, we are of the view that order of CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference.
When postal authorities collected notice from revenue on 31-3-2015 (last date of expiry of six years from end of relevant assessment year) as per arrangement between revenue and postal department, though such notice was served to assessee later, such notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was not barred by limitation.
This amount represents difference between the amount payable as shown in the books of account under the sales tax deferral scheme of Government of Maharashtra, availed by the company and that paid under the Pre- payment scheme on the basis of Net Present value of the amount due, as pe
In a significant ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that if a cheque is encashed by the builder after the deadline for filing income-tax return, it will not debar the taxpayer from claiming I-T exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which is available on reinvestment of long term capital gains in residential property.
When the shares were found to be credited and debited in the DEMAT account and sale of shares were found to be genuine, then what is the basis to contend that purchases of the said shares were not made by the appellant.
It was observed that the assessee company is owned by Mr. Karan Johar and RCEPL is owned by Mr.Shahrukh Khan. Both are known personalities of Indian film industry. The authorities have not disputed the fact of providing services by Mr.Shahrukh Khan in the production and marketing of the film `Kaal’. The film was released under […]
Commission notes that providing free services cannot by itself raise competition concerns unless the same is offered by a dominant enterprise and shown to be tainted with an anti-competitive objective of excluding competition/ competitors, which does not seem to be the case in the instant matter as the relevant market is characterised by the presence […]
As the assessee was not drawing any salary from POL then in our considered view the perquisites cannot be determined in terms of the provision of Sec. 17(2) r.w.r. 3 of the Rules.
Official Liquidator (OL) could file claim within a period of four years from the date of winding up order, by taking the benefit of one year period immediately following the date of the winding up order, as provided under section 458A of the Act and the three years period provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
In DCIT v. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co.Ltd, the ITAT Kolkata held that shareholding by Subsidiary Company is irrelevant while considering ‘deemed dividend’ liability of Holding Company under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
