In this matter, the Hon ’ble Gujarat High Court has remanded the issue of not allowing input tax credit on purchases affected through retail invoices to Tribunal for fresh adjudication. For penalty imposed u/s 34 (12) of The GVAT Act, 2003
Assessee has sold its sales tax incentives and what it has received is not sales tax benefit/incentive but sale consideration on transfer of its entitlement and sale consideration is nothing but is a benefit directly arising from business and, is therefore, a revenue receipt.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the request of the AO to disallow the future losses recognized by the company as per Accounting Standard -7 (AS-7) , as during original assessment proceedings there was no discussion or disallowance on this ground.
What is important is whether the interest earned on the Central Government grant is to be treated as the income earned or not, and not what the assessee claimed. As stated hereinabove, in the letter of the Central Government releasing the grant, which provides a condition that the interest earned
Even a cursory look at the admitted facts of the case would show that the transferee had neither performed nor was it willing to perform its obligation under the agreement in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration.
Hon’ble Rajasthan HC has held in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Singh that the Judgment of ITAT in various cases passed by this case are stereo typed, non-speaking, unreasoned, arbitrary and whimsical andremand the matter back to the ITAT to re-visit the issue afresh de-novo
Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353).
An identical issue has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2002-03, Addl. DIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait. Respectfully following the order of this Tribunal, the direct and exclusive NRI Desk expenses incurred by head office were allowed
If the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
Recently P&H High Court has held in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT that identification of the flat or physical delivery of possession is irrelevant as right to hold properly stands crystalised upon allotment. The allotment of a particular flat and delivery of its possession would relate back to the allotment.
