Petitioner owns an area admeasuring 2.00 acres bearing khasra No.266 & 267 at village Palod, PH No.69/18 RI Block Mandir Hasod, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur. A part of the said area belonging to the petitioner has been used for construction of road by the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA)
Having heard Mr. Pinto at some length and perusing with his assistance the order, dated 1972013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.4125/Mum/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, we are of the view that the same does not raise any substantial question of law.
Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30th December 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 53, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 2,57,246, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12.
It was held that Article 105(2) though gives immunity in respect of everything said in Parliament but subject to the limitation that it should have been said during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament.
The Appellant being not satisfied with the compounding of fine has challenged the order dated 30th September, 2016 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, in TP No.154/621A/NCLT/AHM/2016 (New), CA No.90/621A/CLB/MB/2013 (Old).
DCIT Vs Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Given facts of the present case that whatever test may be applied in deciding whether any expenditure is allowable as a deduction under section 37, the essential requirement must in every case be as to whether the expenditure was either in reality or as a […]
It is crystal clear proposition of law that when there is no element of income and there is mere reimbursement made there is no question of deduction of TDS.
In this case assessee having got 15 flats along with his two sons will not disentitle him from getting the benefit U/s. 54F of IT Act only on ground that all the 15 flats are not in the same Block, particularly in the light of admitted factual position that all the 15 flats are located at same address.
The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) on total income including the income received from lease rental on open yard. The A.O. observed that since open yard is not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of Section 80IA(4) of the Act,
High Court held that MSOs to the extent that they directly provide cable service to the subscribers without the intervention of any LCO, would be regarded as the ‘proprietors‘ under Section 7(1) and would be liable to collect and pay the entertainment tax to the Government.
