In a very important case namely Dishnet Wireless Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer SLP No. 37727/2013 and in WP(c) No. 69 of 2014 namely Amrit Banaspati Limited vs State of Punjab Supreme Court has granted stay on the operation and implementation of section 62(5) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005.
The Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenditure under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without first recording that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim as regards the claim that “no expenditure” was made by the assessee.
We find that the assessee has made payment on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act and this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Shree Limited, supra, wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under
Respondent in the present case submits that there is a illegal assumption of jurisdiction as the officer who made assessment had no jurisdiction at all to make the assessment. Opportunity was given by the Tribunal to the department to produce the transfer order transferring the case from office of Income Tax Officer, Azamgarh to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asstt.), Varanasi but no such order was produced. In any case, no opportunity of hearing before passing of the transfer order was given.
It is well settled that in 153A/C assessments additions cannot be made unless they are based on any incriminating material or inquiries based on such material. It clearly emerges from record that there is neither reference nor reliance on any incriminating material.
Interest is a term relating to a pre-existing debt, which implies a debtor creditor relationship. According to us, unpaid consideration gives rise to a lien over goods sold and not for money lent. This interpretation of ours is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
Sub-section(4) of section 80P will not apply to an assessee which is not a co-operative bank. In the case clarified by CBDT, Delhi Coop Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. was under consideration. Circular clarified that the said entity not being a co-operative bank
M/s Sasi Enterprises, the firm, did not file any returns for the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93, for which the firm and its partners are being prosecuted under Section 276CC of the Act. J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala did not file returns for the assessment year 1993-94 and hence
The issue of revenue’s appeal is that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance made by AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules at Rs.55,47,700/-. Here the assessee before the lower authorities and even before us explained that out of the total interest payment of Rs.97,22,656/-, the interest aggregating to Rs. 92,69,529/- was paid to Brila Global Finance Co. Ltd.,
There cannot be any dispute with the legal contention of the learned counsel that the reimbursement of the expenses can never be income. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has also held that the reimbursement of expenses can under no circumstances
