Amitkumar Ambalal Shah vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
S. 2(47): Transfer takes place in year of execution of
sale deed, handing over of possession & receipt of sale consideration &
is not deferred to year of registration. Verdict in Suraj Lamp and Industries
340 ITR 1 (SC) explained
The Tribunal had to consider whether capital gains are
assessable in AY 2008-09, being the year when the sale deed was executed and
possession handed over and most of the sale consideration was received or in AY
2009-10 when the sale deed was registered. Held by the Tribunal: The
transaction relates to the date when […]
Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)
Though approval of Director of STPI to EOU is sufficient
for s. 10A, it is not so for s. 10B. For s. 10B, the approval of the Board
appointed under I(D&R) Act is necessary. Claim for s. 10A can be made
before CIT(A)
(1) The fact that the assessee is a 100% EOU approved by
the Director, STPI does not mean entitle the assessee to deduction u/s 10B if
the undertaking is not been approved by the Board appointed in this behalf by
the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 14 of the
Industries (Development […]
Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Rule 10B(1)(b): Resale Price Method applies even where
the goods are bought from an AE and sold to another AE
The argument of the department that under Rule 10B(1)(b)
the Resale Price Method can be applied only when the assessee buys from an
associated enterprise and sells to a non-associated enterprise and not when the
sale is to an AE is not correct. As per the Rule 10B(1)(b), under the Resale
Price Method the price […]
Kanchenjunga Greenlands Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT
Hyderabad)
The only requirement of s. 249(4) is payment of tax due
on returned income. There is no time limit prescribed for payment of such
taxes. The delay in filing an appeal after payment of SA tax can be condoned
(i) The only requirement of section 249(4) is payment of
tax due on returned income and there is no time limit prescribed for payment of
such taxes. Therefore, if an appeal is filed after making of payment, it cannot
be said that the requirement of section 249(4) has not been complied with. The
CIT(A) can […]
ACIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 194-I: Payment for use of an asset simpliciter,
whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, could be said to
be for the use of an asset. However, payment for a specific act such as power
transmission and even if an asset is used in the said process, cannot be said
to be for the use of an asset
(i) It is thus clear that in a situation in which the
payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and
possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be for the
use of an asset. However, in a situation in which the payment is […]
No comments:
Post a Comment