ITAT Lucknow held in the case DCIT vs. M/s J.K. Cement Ltd. that certain conditions are made in the subsidy scheme, which is required to be fulfilled by the corporate sector in order to avail the benefit of subsidy.
During the financial year 2001-02 the assessee had installed wind energy project at a cost of Rs.1189.87 lakhs. The assessee accordingly applied for the said capital subsidy which was granted to the assessee during the relevant financial year 2007-08 at Rs.20 lakhs.
ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s. Shivalik Prints Limited vs. ACIT that in the judgment of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme court have held that the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under a scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is granted i.e. one has to apply the purpose test.
ITAT Lucknow held in the case of DCIT vs. M/s E-Soft Technologies Ltd. that as per the CBDT Circular No. 01 of 2013 and as per the Tribunal decision of the Pune Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Symantec Software India P. Ltd in ITA No. 787/PN/09, dated 30th November 2011
ITAT Mumbai held in the case ITO vs. Smt. Elsa Silva that as per the agreement , ‘Athithi Builders’ has acquired the development rights of the said property after paying separately and directly by cheque Rs.2.73 crores to the assessee, Rs.1.23 Crores to Shri D.P.Koli and Rs.0.50 crores to Shri Alex Silva.
(i) Whether by a unilateral amendment in the Income Tax Act, an interpretation of the same term in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement can be changed? (ii) Whether by merely terming an amendment as ‘clarificatory’ and making it retrospective infact renders its retrospectivity valid in law?
Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside and the Executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution of decree against the present legal heir Hardayal Singh.
The initial assessment year has been defined and the expression or’ has been used in respect of new units by stating commences operation’ or complete substantial expansion’. Here the expression or’ is to be read as a mutually exclusive expression which refers to a particular situation by excluding the other situation.
Where no question was asked during statement recorded under section 132(4), in respect of manner of earning income surrendered, assessee could not be expected to substantiate same later on; penalty could not be levied under section 271AAA
We understand that in case of search, assessee is to comply with law and various declaration and formalities which certainly take lot of time. From the aforesaid situation and circumstances, it is clear that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to pay wealth tax in the wealth tax return
