As per AS-7 when the cost of contract is likely to be exceed the contract revenue then the loss incurred on the contract should be recognized as revenue expenditure immediately.
In this Case Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Payments made by the agents to the concerned foreign assessee, for using the facility of Net Communication System, developed by the assessee for smooth functioning of its international shipping business cannot be classified as fees for technical services and would not be chargeable as income under Income […]
Construction expenses not recorded in books of account, cannot be a ground for assessing rental income under the head income from other sources when conditions of Section 22 of Act for assessing annual value of property have been fulfilled by assessee.
It appears to the authority that there is a systematic design which rightly necessitated the authority to lift the corporate veil. It is also found by the authority that at the relevant point of time, the company was of one man show and substantially managed and controlled by petitioner and that conclusion is arrived at on the basis of materials on record which are indicated specifically that substantial cash flow and substantial increase in capital is only after induction of petitioner as a director and certificate of commencement of business was obtained by the company only after petitioner being joined in the company.
Delhi High Court dismisses writ petition filed by Revenue and held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being an appellate body has wide powers to call for records/examine the records. Such powers cannot be curtailed and the Revenue cannot refuse to produce the records. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the direction of the Income […]
Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the ITAT order which essentially held that the valuation by the banker, who provided credit could well be different from the valuation report for the transaction given that the assessee had purchased the property long ago. In other words, the absence of any material […]
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on acquisition of marketing and technical knowhow is revenue in nature as the benefit would accrue over a period of time and treatment in books of account is not relevant
An ‘individual’ and an ‘HUF’ are different persons under the Income Tax Act, and notice to one cannot be deemed as notice to the other.
Assessee society is generating surplus year after year is not the deciding factor to determine whether it is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. And on this ground alone, the exemption claimed by the assessee society under section 11 can not be denied. What is relevant to examine is whether the surplus so generated is ploughed back in furtherance of its educational objectives and related activities or not.
In terms of section 153A of the Act, the already finalised assessment can only be disturbed if the search team has found some incriminating documents or material and which was relied upon by the AO at the time of framing the assessment or the addition is made in the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act by referring to seized material and not otherwise
