Once loss is determined, the same should be set off against the income determined under any other head of income including undisclosed income. Hon’ble ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of M/s. K.R. Automobiles v/s ACIT in ITA No.1972/Ahd/2012 has held that business loss can be set off against the addition u/s.68 of the Act by observing as follows:-
Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that Service tax is not required to be paid on goods used in the repairing process on which Excise duty and VAT has been paid on the value of the said goods, ignoring the fact that as per the contract the respondents were under an obligation to replace the damaged parts and to maintain the transformers in a proper working condition.
In the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal Secretary & Ors., Honourable SC has held that entire allocation of coal block as per recommendations made by the Screening Committee from 14.07.1993 in 36 meetings and the allocation through the Government dispensation route
ITAT Mumbai has in the case of Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil Vs. DCIT held that Purchases can not be termed as bogus by the AO merely because the supplier was listed as a hawala dealer by the Vat authorities.
Honourable Supreme Court has held in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. that all the pending cases of cheque bouncing under Negotiable Instrument Act to be transferred to the place from the cheque is issued.
the writ petition, which has been admitted by an order passed the Division Bench on 6 August 2014, there is a challenge to the validity of Rule 73 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 on the ground that they are ultra vires the provisions of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and the Advocates Act, 1961 insofar as it permits persons who are not Advocates ‘to appear and represent’ before the authorities established under the Act of 2008.
We find from the audit report that the expenses in respect of exempt income was shown at Rs. Nil,that the assessee had debited direct expenses on account of dematerialisation and STT in the capital account and in the profit and loss account,that AO had presumed that the assessee had must
Dividend is not exempt under Section 10(34) read with Section 115-O because the companies from whom the assessee received the dividend has not paid dividend distribution tax. His claim is that the dividend received by the assessee company is exempt on account of mutuality
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105 wherein it was held that where facts are clearly disclosed in the return
The assessee argues that the expression reasons to believe under Section 147 refers to objective circumstances. In the present case, the assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) after notice was issued under Section 142 (1) was issued and explanation sought in respect of all relevant matters.
