|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 690 Records
-
2014 (7) TMI 1335 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - applicability of provisions of s. 50C in determining the deemed full value of consideration received - AO was directed to recompute the capital gains applying the provisions of s. 50C and the assessee is objecting to the same - HELD THAT:- We wish to point out that it is well settled that the Tribunal is the final fact finding body. The findings of the Tribunal are not liable to be interfered with, unless the Tribunal has taken into consideration any irrelevant material or has failed to take into consideration any relevant material or the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person, on the basis of the facts before the Tribunal, could have come to the conclusion to which it has come. In the present case, we have to point out that in the absence of both the lower authorities not considering the provisions of s. 50C, Tribunal in its inherent powers was right in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed u/s. 50C of the Act.
The legal principal that while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal assessed income cannot be enhanced is implicit in each order of the Tribunal. However, since the same has not been explicitly stated in the order of the Tribunal dated 4.4.2014 at para 13, now we amend para 13 of the Tribunal order dated 4.4.2014 and the following sentence is added to para 13 which reads as under:
"Further, the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal shall compute the capital gains by applying the provisions of s. 50C and ensure that the finally decided capital gain does not exceed the capital gains originally assessed in the assessment order." MAs are partly allowed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1334 - SC ORDER
Product Development Cost - Capital or Revenue - The development was on account of scientific research - evidence on record shows most of the money is spent towards cost of the employees, who had developed the product, multi channel customer relationship management solution, which provides sales, marketing, services, human resources and finance through the medium of e-mail, chat, wireless, fax, phone, etc. to the end users - The expenditure in respect of the scientific research, even if it is capital in nature as it was incurred in relation to the business carried on by the assessee under Section 35(1)(iv) - HELD THAT:- SLP Dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1333 - ITAT JODHPUR
Estimation of income - Rejection of books of accounts - AO directing to apply net profit rate of 8.48% before allowing claim for depreciation, interest & remuneration to partners and interest paid to third parties as against net profit rate applied by the A.O. at 10.5% subject to depreciation and interest and remuneration paid to the partners when provisions of sec. 145 - HELD THAT:- Assessee is a partnership firm deriving its income from execution of contract work undertaken from Government department. The books of account were rejected u/s 145(3) and net profit rate was applied. The Tribunal has also confirmed the application of provisions of section 145(3) of the Act but the assessee had claimed interest paid to third parties while estimating profit under this section.
This issue was stated to be covered by the decision of this very Bench rendered in the case of M/s Ganesh Garhia Construction Co. Vs. ACIT [2014 (5) TMI 1202 - ITAT JODHPUR] - The issue of payment of interest to third parties being clearly covered by the Tribunal order and their consistent view, we modify the order accordingly by making observation that after invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act in this case, interest paid to third parties is also allowable.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1331 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Fee for technical services under Section 9(i)(vii) - Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the commission paid to M/s. Agenta World Trading and Consulting Establishment for procuring export orders, is not fee for technical services under Section 9(i)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - HELD THAT:- With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard and judgment has been reserved.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1329 - ITAT CHENNAI
Penalty u/s 271D - loan in cash and violation is intentional and purposeful - contravention of the provisions of section 269SS - HELD THAT:- The genuineness of the loan creditors and the loan transactions were never doubted by the Department. Moreover, the Department has not taxed these amounts in the hand of the lender i.e. Shri A. Kannan. He also observed that the assessee satisfies the existence of the reasonable cause for contravention of the provisions of section 269SS. When the assessee had shown reasonable cause and the reasonable cause is essentially a finding of fact, no question of law much less substantial question of law would arise. The alleged contravention did not result in any unaccounted transaction and that said transactions were made only to meet the sudden demand in the business activities.
As decided in own case [2013 (10) TMI 1327 - ITAT CHENNAI] the factum of loan and repayments are beyond doubt. The genuineness of the transactions is also not in doubt. It is also established by the assessees that there existed similar emergency for repaying the loan in cash, as the emergency which prompted them to take loans in cash. Therefore, this is a case where there is a reasonable cause for the assessees to repay the loans in cash. In such circumstances, it is to be seen that the violation of Section 269T is technical. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1328 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D - Tribunal held that no investment is made by the assessee in shares and securities (Mutual funds) out of interest bearing funds - HELD THAT:- Question raised in these appeals is identical to one involved in Income Tax Appeal [2014 (7) TMI 1327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] even these Appeals fail. They are thus dismissed by upholding the findings of the Tribunal. No costs.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 14A - Substantial question of law - sufficient funds for the purpose of investment available with the Assessee - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has, in relation to the question projected before us as substantial question of law, found on facts that there were sufficient funds for the purpose of investment available with the Assessee .The documentary evidence in relation thereto was produced before the Tribunal. That indicated as to how there was increase in investment by ₹ 242.10 millions in the year whereas the shareholder fund of the Assessee was increased to ₹ 1752 millions. Thus, it is seven times more than the Assessee's investment made during the year. It is also evident that the profit after tax itself was much more and that could have covered the volume of investment.
Concurrent findings have been reversed by the Tribunal by observing that the Assessee has sufficient own funds. When the Assessee has borrowed the funds even when he is having own funds, the presumption always goes in favour of the Assessee that the Assessee made investments out of own funds. We are of the opinion that the only question projected as substantial question of law by the Revenue would not enable us to entertain these Appeals.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1326 - ITAT DELHI
Exemption u/s 10(37) - Enhanced compensation received by assessee - Interest on enhanced compensation - HELD THAT:- As decided by ITAT in his brother’s case it is not denied by the revenue that the interest received by the appellant was u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] such interest is part of the enhanced compensation. Enhanced compensation received is exempted u/s 10(37) of the Act and thus dismiss the revenue’s appeal.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1325 - SC ORDER
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deduction under Section 80P(2) - no claim for deduction was made but it was made by filing the revised return - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Appeal Dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1322 - ITAT KOLKATA
Bogus purchases - Difference in the copy of account of Hindusthan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd. with that of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that complete reconciliation i.e. entry of purchase as on 31.03.2008 for an amount of ₹ 11,12,794/- was filed. Once reconciliation is filed and the purchase entry is explained, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Addition of difference in assessee’s accounts and Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd.’s - HELD THAT:- Assessee got a copy of account in books of Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd., which was submitted before the AO vide written submission dated 18.11.2010. This copy of account as appearing in the books of creditors i.e. Royal Surgical Pvt. Ltd. was filed before AO and placed on records, clearly indicates that request made by the AO vide letter dated 28.10.2010 has been complied with and there is no discrepancy in the accounts. We find that the CIT(A) has verified the assessment records and considered the ledger copy of that party, which tallies with the assessee firm and hence, the bogus purchases added by the AO has rightly been deleted. We confirm the same. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Disallowance of interest paid without deduction of TDS - appellant received form No. 15G from the parties but the said forms were not submitted to the appropriate authority of the I. T. Department - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered by the decisions cited by the A.R. that if the assessee has received form No. 15G then even if the said forms were not submitted to the appropriate authorities, no disallowance can be made u/s. 40(a)(ia). In view of the above, the disallowance is directed to be deleted.” In view of the above reasons, and since the Ld. Sr. DR is unable to produce any contradictory material in the aforesaid order of CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1319 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of Arm’s Length Price of international transaction - MAM selection - HELD THAT:- Finding of the CIT(A) that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case TNMM is the most appropriate method deserves to be upheld as the same is in consistency of the finding of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding assessment year [2011 (7) TMI 1364 - ITAT DELHI] . However the CO-ordinate Bench had restored the issue to verify the calculation as they had not been vetted either by the AO or by the CIT(A).
In the facts of the present case the exercise has been done by the CIT(A) against which the Revenue is in appeal before us on the afore-mentioned ground. We have taken ourselves through the findings arrived at in impugned order which has been extracted in the earlier part of this order. On a consideration thereof and in the absence of any argument pointing to an incorrect fact, circumstance or position of law so as to come to a contrary view we find no good reason to interfere with the finding arrived at in the impugned order. Being satisfied with the reasoning and finding arrived at therein the departmental ground is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1318 - ITAT MUMBAI
Exemption u/s 11(1)(a) - CIT(A) in not allowing standard deduction of 30% from rental income as available u/s 24(a) - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05 [2013 (10) TMI 875 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein similar claim of the assessee has been rejected by the Tribunal on the reason that the income of a charitable trust is exempt from tax under chapter III of the Act and the said income does not form part of the total income of the entity.
It is only the income forming part of the total income us/ 2(45) of the Act which is to be classified under various heads of income u/s 14. Accordingly, the Tribunal denied the claim of the assessee made u/s 24 of the Act. In the said decision, the Tribunal has analysed various decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal. Since, similar issue of allowability of the claim made u/s 24 has been denied by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2004-05, we are of the considered view that the present appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed and thus the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is upheld. Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1317 - ITAT PANAJI
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - whether the Assessee is a co-operative bank or not? - whether the Assessee is hit by the provisions of Sec. 80P(4) which was introduced in the statute by the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007? - HELD THAT:- It is not necessary that the co-operative society should have a banking licence as per the definition under the Income Tax Act for carrying on banking business. If licence is not obtained it may be an illegal banking business under the other statute. What we have to see whether the nature of the business carrying on by the assessee is a banking business or not. The Income Tax in our opinion is not concerned whether the banking business carried on by the assessee is legal or illegal. The income has to be assessed u/s 14 of the Income Tax Act under the same head even if the nature of the business is illegal. If we look into the bye-laws which consists of fund of the society, we noted that the types of the deposits which the assessee has accepted as per bye-laws are the same as are being accepted during the course of the carrying out the banking activities.
So far as the second condition is concerned, there is no dispute that the paid up share capital and reserves in the case of the Assessee is more than ₹ 1 lac. Therefore, the Assessee satisfies the second condition.
So far as the third condition is concerned, we noted that Sec. 16 of The Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 permits admission of any other co-operative society as a member.
From clause 16, it is apparent that the bye-laws of society does not permit the admission of any other co-operative society as member. Thus the third condition for becoming primary co-operative bank is complied with. Since the assessee society does not comply with all the three conditions, therefore, in our opinion the assessee society does not become a primary co-operative bank and in view of explanation (a) of section 80P(4) it has not to be regarded as a co-operative bank and is not hit by section 80P(4).
Assessee has not to be regarded to be a primary co-operative bank as all the three basic conditions are not complied with, therefore, it is not a co-operative bank and the provisions of Sec. 80P(4) are not applicable in the case of the Assessee and Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). We, therefore, setaside the order of the CIT(A) not allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) to the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow deduction to the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on the income generated for providing banking or credit facilities to its members. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1316 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Revision u/s 263 - CIT directing revision to the assessment order to include agricultural capital gain in the computation of book profits u/s 115JB - submission of the assessee is that the profits on transfer of agricultural land falls within the definition of agricultural income and therefore the same is to be reduced from the profits as per profit & loss account while computing book profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact in the case of the assessee is that, the land transferred is agricultural land. This is so because the assessing officer has not assessed the income arising out of those lands under the regular provisions of Income-tax Act. In fact, the Ld. CIT Vijayawada has accepted the correctness of computation of total income under the regular provisions of the Act. Consequently, the profit on sale of agricultural land would become agricultural income u/s 2(1A) of the Act and hence not part of total income as per provisions of section 10 under provisions of Income tax Act, 1961. This profit has to be excluded from the computation of total income. In our view, it should be reduced from the net profits as per profit & loss account while computing the book profits for the purposes of 115JB of the Act. See HARRISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED. VERSUS ACIT [2009 (5) TMI 124 - ITAT COCHIN] - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (7) TMI 1315 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Revision u/s 263 - unexplained investment in jewellery u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- After going through the board’s instruction no.1916 we are of the view that though the aforesaid circular is in the context of seizure of gold jewellery but the same can also be applied while considering the unexplained investment in gold jewellery by the assessee. In the aforesaid instruction 1916 dated 11.5.1994, it is clearly mentioned that in case of married lady 500 gms. And in case of unmarried lady 250 gms can be given credit.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2010 (7) TMI 769 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] taking note of board’s instruction no.1916 has also expressed similar view by holding that though the circular has been issued for the purpose of laying down guidelines for seizure of jewellery but it can also be considered for the purpose of explaining the source of jewellery in terms with the guidelines laid down in the said instruction. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of the board’s instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court we direct the assessing officer to work out the unexplained investment, if any, after giving credit for gold jewellery as per clause (iii) of board’s instruction no.1916 dated 11.5.1994. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal is considered to be allowed for statistical purposes.
Assessment u/s 153A - Addition of unexplained cash credit - AO has only disputed the source of investment which is already reflected in the books of accounts and return filed prior to the date of search - HELD THAT:- an amount which has already been recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return of income cannot be made subject matter of assessment u/s 153A of the Act, in absence of abatement of assessment proceeding. We therefore hold that the addition made of ₹ 7,30,000/- is not justified. So far as merits of the issue is concerned, undisputedly the assessee from the very beginning has explained that the amount was received as gift from his father. This fact was confirmed during the assessment proceeding through affidavit of his mother and father’s brother. The assessing officer has simply disbelieved the affidavit without verifying the veracity of the averments made therein, which in our view is not a correct approach on the part of the assessing officer. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Revision u/s 263 - CIT (Central) Hyderabad u/s 263 revising the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A - HELD THAT:- As can be seen the assessing officer in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act has not made any addition in reference to any seized material but has treated the investment made in property of ₹ 7,30,000/- as unexplained credit. This amount has already been shown in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return. Therefore, when there is no assessment proceeding pending on the date of search for the impugned assessment year, the assessing officer cannot consider income which has already been recorded in the books of accounts and reflected in the return filed prior to the date of search.
An amount which has already been recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return of income cannot be made subject matter of assessment u/s 153A of the Act, in absence of abatement of assessment proceeding. We therefore hold that the addition made of ₹ 7,30,000/- is not justified. So far as merits of the issue is concerned, undisputedly the assessee from the very beginning has explained that the amount was received as gift from his father. This fact was confirmed during the assessment proceeding through affidavit of his mother and father’s brother. The assessing officer has simply disbelieved the affidavit without verifying the veracity of the averments made therein, which in our view is not a correct approach on the part of the assessing officer. Hence, the assessing officer having made the addition purely on presumption and surmises without making any enquiry, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to delete the same.
Assessment proceeding initiated u/s 153A which were ultimately completed by the assessing officer - HELD THAT:- Assessing officer at the time of assessment proceeding has conducted enquiry specifically in respect of the loans to M/s. Sai Agro Industries. Merely because the result of such enquiry has not been mentioned in the assessment order, it will not tantamount to assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as it is not a case of no enquiry. Further, CIT has not brought any material on record to show that advances were not in regular course of business. Therefore, on merits also the CIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as the assessing officer has conducted enquiry and passed the order after application of mind. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and therefore, we quash the same.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1314 - ITAT DELHI
Commission paid to Directors - HELD THAT:- The first two directors namely Shri Umesh Srivastava and Ms. Suman Srivastava are holding shares to the extent of 19.8% and 122.4% respectively. These directors are engineers and Management graduates and are having experience of 50 years and 15 years respectively. In respect of these two directors, the Tribunal in assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, had held in favour of the assessee. Besides the above Tribunal order in the earlier years, a number of judgements has been relied upon by the A.R. before Ld. CIT(A) which hold that payment to directors in the form of commission is covered by the definition of remuneration.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gestetner Duplicators Ltd. Vs CIT [1978 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that commission paid at a fixed percentage on the turnover is nothing but payment as salary - the commission paid by the assessee would clearly fall within the expression ‘salary’. Similarly, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rohit Mills Ltd. [1995 (10) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that the commission paid to directors is distinctly remuneration paid for the services rendered by him. Even if it is not covered by the definition of remuneration, it would be covered by any benefit resulting directly or indirectly to such director at the cost of the company. In view of the above judicial precedents, we hold that the disallowance of commission was not warranted
Depreciation of Computer Peripherals, printer and UPS - HELD THAT:- Since the expenditure is with regard to the computer peripherals, printers, UPS which can not be used stand alone, therefore, in view of the decision relied upon by the appellant, agree that in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, he is entitled for depreciation @ 60% .
Disallowance on account of advances & reimbursables written off - HELD THAT:- Appellant has credited both the fees as well as out of pocket expenses to the Profit and loss account, hence Assessing Officer’s observation is not correct that debt has not been taken into account while computing the income. Further in view of the accounting treatment regularly followed by the appellant and by relying on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of TRF Limited Vs CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] the claims of bad debt is allowed
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that fixed maturity plans offered by mutual funds definitely require much less professional expertise as compared for making investments in equity related schemes and therefore, less expenditure is involved in managing such schemes. Moreover before upholding partial disallowance u/s 14A, Ld. CIT(A) should have considered the submissions of assessee that a part of investments were not for earning dividends but were strategic investments. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the issue of disallowance be readjudicated by the Assessing Officer and the AO should decide the disallowance on the basis of his objective findings after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
-
2014 (7) TMI 1313 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80IB - interest earned by the assessee on account of fixed deposits was also made from out of the borrowed fund - CIT(A) allowed an appeal preferred by the assessee holding, inter alia, that the interest earned by the assessee on account of fixed deposits was also made from out of the borrowed fund as endorsed the views of the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- In the present case it is difficult to say that the interest earned by the assessee from the buyers of the goods on account of delayed payment of the sale proceeds does not have any direct nexus with the business of the assessee. Similarly, the interest received by the assessee on account of fixed deposits made for the purpose of providing margin money to the lending bank also has a direct nexus because the finding of the CIT (A) is, which is not disputed before us, that for the purpose of making such deposit the assessee had also borrowed money from the bank.
The resultant effect is that if a deposit of ₹ 10/- is to be made by way of margin money for borrowing ₹ 100/-, the assessee has to borrow ₹ 110/- out of which ₹ 100/- can be used for his business and ₹ 10/- can be invested by way of margin money. When he is paying interest for ₹ 110/- and receiving interest on the amount of ₹ 10/-, it can only be said that he is really paying interest for ₹ 100/- which he originally needed for the business. The income arising out of the deposit made by him is, therefore, his business income.
We are of the opinion that the CIT (A) and the tribunal have taken a possible view. There is no reason for us to interfere. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1312 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of sub-brokerage expenses - burden of proof for the claim u/s. 37(1) - HELD THAT:- The assessee has admittedly not filed confirmations in respect of the expenditure to the extent of ₹ 26,54,460/- (the same may, in view of an admitted difference of ₹ 59,103/-, would stand restricted to ₹ 25,95,357 / refer paras 3.4 & 3.7 of this order). There is, accordingly, and clearly, no discharge of the initial onus on the assessee u/s. 37(1) to that extent. The expenditure consequently cannot be allowed, except in the circumstance of the noticee responding agreeably, i.e., with the assessee’s record – with the A.O. having not acted upon the same, so that there is no reason or nothing on record to doubt the veracity or the authenticity of the information furnished by the payee. There is no such response in the instant case. As such, irrespective of whether the notices u/s.133(6) stand issued by the A.O. or not (which could again be for the reason of lack of proper address, etc.), the initial onus having not been discharged in its respect, expenditure to that extent, i.e., ₹ 26,54,460/-, stands to be disallowed.
Expenditure with reference to any particular payee (sub-broker) - HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the ld. DR that the Revenue has in fact acted liberally, allowing the claim for expenditure where as much as a valid confirmation as to the receipt of payment stands filed.
We may further add that the figures stated by us in this order have been adopted as furnished by the assessee before us, upon being sourced from the A.O. under RTI Act. The same, therefore, would be subject to confirmation by the A.O. while giving appeal effect to this order. Further, there being admittedly a difference of ₹ 59,103/-, the assessee shall either explain or reconcile the said difference by locating the source of error. In case, however, the same cannot be and neither is the same found by the A.O.; the total expenditure claimed being at a amount lower (by that amount) for which the detail stands submitted, the benefit of doubt would go to the assessee, so that the expenditure to be allowed with reference to any particular payee (sub-broker) shall be as stated, i.e., without any adjustment or modification on account of the said error/difference. We decide accordingly.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1311 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Computation of MAT - book profit under section 115JA - HELD THAT:- Notes to the Financial Statement are an integral part of the accounts and have to be read as part thereof and the AO can compute the book profit under section 115JA of the Act, taking into account the amount mentioned in the notes to accounts of these financial statements.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1310 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Computation of MAT - book profit under section 115JA - HELD THAT:- The matter stands adjourned on the ground of Mr.Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the respondent-assessee. Let the matter be listed on July 7, 2014. No further adjournment is likely to be granted.
........
|
