| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | March 15, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
An order passed by the AO to give consequential effect to an appeallate order of an earlier year is not an order passed under section 154 and consequently the time limit of section 154(7) does not apply.
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | March 2, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
In the case of a chit fund following the ‘completed contract method of accounting’ and offering income at the end of the chit, held, approving the method: (i) Recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of …
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 27, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
The deletion of the second proviso to s. 43B by the Finance Act 2003 wef 1.4.2004 cannot be treated as a retrospective amendment and contributions towards PF beyond the period stipulated in s 36(1)(va) are not allowable deductions. Note: The …
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 26, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
(i) The judgement of the SC in Mariappa Gounder vs. CIT 232 ITR 2 does not decide whether mesne profits received against wrongful possession of property is in the nature of revenue receipt or capital receipt. It merely decides the …
Narang Overseas vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai 5 Member Special Bench) Read More »
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 24, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
(i) The question whether expenditure is on capital or revenue account should be decided from the practical and business view point and in accordance with sound accountancy principles. The three tests applied to decide the nature of expenditure are the …
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 24, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
(i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not …
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 24, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
Where all the material facts were placed before the AO and he raised questions thereon, Explanation 1 to s. 147 has no application. Further, the argument that because there was no discussion in the assessment order, the AO had not …
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 24, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
Where the CIT (A) decided the ground of reopening against the assessee but decided the ground of merits in favour of the assessee, the assessee is entitled, in an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, to urge, under Rule …
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 19, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period;
| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 16, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
Where the assessee purchased shares at a price below the market price and the question was whether the difference between the market price and the purchase price can be assessed as unexplained investment u/s 69 or as a benefit u/s …
Recent Comments