Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

DCIT, (OSD) , Range-1, Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Applitech Solutions Ltd. and Vica-Versa

Claim of depreciation on the purchases of computers - Held that:- In our considered opinion, the circumstantial evidences are in favour of the assessee. The revenue’s rejection of the claim of depreciation is only based on the statements of Parikh couple who were not allowed to be cross examined by the assessee; therefore, their statements are in complete violation of principles of natural justice. On the basis of circumstantial evidences mentioned elsewhere, we are of the opinion that the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ance of this appeal. We have no hesitation to hold that the money has been borrowed for the purposes of business and, therefore, any interest paid thereon has to be allowed as business expenditure - Decided against assessee.

Disallowance of deffered revenue expenditure - Held that:- We find that the assessee has strongly contended that it has not floated any public issue nor invited any share application from anybody, neither during the year under consideration nor in the subsequent y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r disallowing the same. We accordingly direct the A.O to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee

Disallowance of foreign travelling expenses - Held that:- There is no dispute that the assessee did not furnish complete details of the claim of foreign travel expenditure which it claimed through its computation of income. Even before us no demonstrative evidences have been brought on record to justify the claim in the computation of income. In the absence of any demonstrative .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,71,000/- being treated as capital expenditure

Disallowance of bad debts - Held that:- No doubt that as per the ratio laid downin the case of TRF Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT ] the assessee need not give the reasons for the write off but at the same time the assessee has to demonstrate that the debt has been taken on the income side in the earlier years as per the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act, no such demonstrative evidence has been furnished, neither before the low .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ahd/2014, ITA. No: 1453/Ahd/2014, ITA. No: 804/Ahd/2011 - Dated:- 19-4-2016 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Anil Kshatriya with M.K. Parmar For The Respondent : Smt. Vibha Bhalla, CIT/ D.R. PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. ITA Nos. 1600 & 1452/Ahd/14 are cross appeals by the revenue and the assessee against the very same order of the ld. CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 20.03.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2000-01, CO No. 245 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rvices Ltd, even when the assessee had not discharged the onus of establishing the business purpose of such expenditure. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of ₹ 14.59 lacs towards management consultancy fees paid to CAs despite the fact that the assessee had not discharged the onus of establishing the business purpose of such expenditure. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the disallowance of ₹ 11.51 lacs towards commission p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case and in law, particularly in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat and as reported in 320 ITR 126, Ground no. 3 of the departmental appeal, on the issue of commission payment of ₹ 11.51, lacs is liable to be dismissed, being not maintenance. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, particularly in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat and as reported in 320 ITR 126, Ground no. 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m. 5. The entire dispute dates back to 28.03.2003, when the original assessment order was made by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessment order travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.2010 in ITA No. 1507/Ahd/2005 & 1681/Ahd/2005 observed that since the assessee was granted only two days time for submission of replies on various items of additions proposed by the A.O running into crores of rupees and since the assessee was not allowed to cross examine the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tatements were provided on 25.03.2002 then very little time is left for assessee to submit his reply and to carry out cross-examination of the two persons who have now denied to have made any sales to the assessee company. No doubt the assessee has shown purchases from RIPL and VCPL, therefore, to support these purchases onus is on the assessee to produce these parties before the A.O who has already recorded the statement of these two persons and who have denied to have made any sale to the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ompany to extent full support to the A.O to enable him to enforce the attendance of these two persons. Merely putting the burden on the A.O and to sit quietly will not be in its interest. If necessary the A.O can issue commission to the other officer of the department where the assessee can also go and confront the two persons. Accordingly, both the appeals are restored to the file of the A.O for deciding afresh. 6. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal fresh assessment proceedings were sta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st of ₹ 2.21 crores from M/s. Rahul Infotech Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Vandana Computers (P) Ltd. AO had already recorded the statement of these two persons and who have denied to have made any sale to the assessee company. In response to this notice, the assessee vide letter dated 03.11.2011 submitted that Mr. Rahul Parikh and Smt Vandana Parikh left India and settled in Kuwait. Thereafter, vide this office letter dated 14.11.2011, final opportunity given to the assessee to provide this two pers .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs and has discharged the onus cast upon the Assessee, in Accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in their order dated 15th October, 2011. The A.O. has requested to the assessee vide order sheet dated 18.11.2011 for crossexamination. The A. R. of the assessee requested for the adjournment on 23.11.2011. The A.R. of the assessee vide order sheet dated 23.11.2011 further requested for the adjournment and the case was adjourned on 28.11.2011. The A.R. of the assessee finally requ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons before the A.O. after giving the proper opportunity to the assessee company. Therefore, claim of the assessee regarding depreciation and interest payment is not tenable and rejected. The addition was confirmed by the Ld.CIT (A). (Disallowance of ₹ 16,11,32,180/-) 2.Disallowance of expenses regarding foreign travelling : Contention of the assessee is considered. But the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, follow the decision of the ld. CIT(A) contention of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the assessee is considered. But, follow the original order passed by the A.O. Therefore, contention of the assessee is rejected. (Disallowance of ₹ 20,10,000/-) 5.Management consulting paid to M/s. Shah Mehta Majmudar, C.A. amounting ₹ 14,59,000/-. Contention of the assessee is considered. But, follow the original order passed by the A.O. Therefore, contention of the assessee is rejected. (Disallowance of ₹ 14,59,000/-) 6.Disallowance of the octroi payment of ₹ 1.71,000 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deduction of ₹ 11,51,263/-. The assessing officer has disallowed the entire claim. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 24.03.2005, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed appeal of the assessee in part. The Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the extent of ₹ 2,40,28,712/- u/s. 80HHE and confirmed the disallowance of ₹ 32,93,651/-. Following to the original order passed by the assessing Officer entire claim of deduction u/s. 80HHE of ₹ 2,73,22 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

asis of assumption that purchases of computer Hardware were bogus and could not be found at the time of survey. It was also brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that substantial part of computers and servers were installed at the office premises of the assessee company located at Nivruti Niwas, Ellisbridge at Ahmedabad and also at Delhi and Mumbai. Since these premises were not surveyed by the Department the computer Hardware installed at these premises was completely ignored. In support of i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

impugned disallowance of depreciation was upheld. 10. In so far as the claim of interest expenses of ₹ 1,06,89,996/- is concerned, it was explained by the assessee that the loan was not used for the purchase of computer. It was further brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that out of total claim of interest of ₹ 1,06,89,996/-, only ₹ 65,39,348/- was paid to the bank on term loan and remaining interest pertained to other parties. Necessary details were furnished. The ld. CIT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

laimed by the assessee, a sum of ₹ 16,56,920/- was transferred to pre-operative expenses account and the balance was debited to P & L account, though while computing the taxable income ₹ 16,56,920/- was claimed as revenue expenditure for the year under consideration. The A.O treated the same as a capital expenditure. It was strongly contended by the assessee that accounting entries are not decisive for the claim of expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) at Para 7.2 of his order simply follo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pertain to increase in share capital, the assessee claimed the same to be allowable u/s. 35D of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) at Para 8.2 of his order simply reproduced the findings of his predecessor given in the first round of appeal, the disallowance was upheld. 13. In so far as the disallowance of consulting charges of ₹ 20,10,000/-, Management consulting charges of ₹ 14,59,028/- and Commission of ₹ 11,51,263/- is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) found that the A.O in the present asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n the first round of appeal, no ground was taken by the revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, A.O s action in disallowing the commission is beyond the mandate of the Tribunal s order. 14. A similar observation has been made in so far as the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHE is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) observed that since in the first round of litigation, the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHE was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) and since the revenue had not preferred any appeal against the said findings of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the matter relating to the claim of depreciation on purchases of computers, therefore, all other additions/disallowances made by the A.O are beyond the directions of the ITAT. 17. Rival contentions were heard at length. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the Tribunal setting aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the first round of litigation. 18. At the very outset, we would like to state that the cross objectio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. 19. Coming to the revenue s appeal which relates to the deletion of addition on account of consulting charges paid to satellite management services, management consulting fees paid to CAs and commission paid to Shri Jayesh Parikh. We find that the Assessing Officer has simply followed the findings of his predecessor given in the first round of litigation. Nothing new has been added which could justify the disallowances. Since in the first rou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t round of litigation, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 1, 2 & 3 of Revenue s appeal taken together are dismissed. 20. Ground no. 4 relates to the claim of deduction u/s. 80HHE. We find that in the first round of litigation, the ld. CIT(A) has restored this issue to the files of the A.O with similar directions to verify the claim made by the assessee and the A.O while giving appeal effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1452/Ahd/2014. 22. The first grievance relates to the claim of depreciation on the purchases of computers. 23. The facts relating to this grievance are that during the course of the assessment proceedings in the first round, the A.O found that the claim of purchase of computers by the assessee was bogus. Necessary enquires were made from Co-Op. Bank of Ahmedabad from where the assessee has taken loan of approximately 6 crores. The information received from the bank revealed that almost the enti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

id by the vendor and the same was reimbursed by the assessee. But the A.O was of the firm belief that in either situation the assessee must be having receipts of octroi payment. 24. For verifying the genuineness of the purchases, statement of Rahul Parikh and Vandana Parikh were recorded by the A.O. In the respective statement, both the persons denied of any such transaction with the assessee company. Based on these statements, the claim of depreciation was disallowed. As mentioned elsewhere, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it of present Directors namely Sahid Sayed and Ketan Parikh were filed with the A.O to establish the genuineness of the purchase of computers. 25. In the de novo proceedings, we find that the A.O did nothing to enforce the attendance of Parikh couple so that the assessee could cross examine them. We also find that no efforts were made by the A.O to dismiss the veracity of the contents of the affidavits of present Directors namely Sahid Sayed and Ketan Parekh; we also find that the payments for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hardware installed at these premises cannot be ruled out. One more important factor which has to be considered and which goes in favour of the assessee is the claim of short payment of octroi by the octroi department. The assessee has been found to have made short payment of octroi by ₹ 1,71,000/- There is no adverse remark by the revenue authorities in so far as the insurance policies taken to insure the computers. 26. Considering the aforementioned facts, in our considered opinion, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

de the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O to allow the claim of depreciation. This ground is accordingly allowed. 27. Next grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of interest expenses of ₹ 1,06,89,996/-. 28. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was explained that the interest paid to Co. Op. Bank of Ahmedabad was on loan taken from this bank for the purposes of business and the amounts were used for the business purposes of the company. It was explai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t round of litigation. We have carefully gone through the contents of the facts in issues, there is no dispute that the disallowance is based upon the findings given in the first round of litigation. Since we have held the purchase of computers to be genuine as per our detailed decision/discussion qua first grievance of this appeal. We have no hesitation to hold that the money has been borrowed for the purposes of business and, therefore, any interest paid thereon has to be allowed as business e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts and other supporting evidence. However, while making the accounting entries, a sum of ₹ 16,56,920/- was transferred to preoperative expenses account. Taking a leaf out of this accounting entry, the A.O disallowed the expenditure on finding that no demonstrative evidence has been furnished by the assessee in support of its claim. The A.O further observed that the assessee did not debit this amount in its Profit and Loss account but the same has been claimed by way of computation of incom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. In the absence of any demonstrative evidence, the claim of the assessee is rightly denied by the revenue authorities. This grievance of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 32. The next grievance of the assessee relates to the disallowance of ₹ 1,59,028/- as deffered revenue expenditure. 33. The disallowance has been made on the finding that the entire expenditure has been incurred for increase in share of capital. It was explained before the revenue authorities that the total expendit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a thoughtful consideration to the findings of the authorities below. We find that the assessee has strongly contended that it has not floated any public issue nor invited any share application from anybody, neither during the year under consideration nor in the subsequent years. Therefore, there is no question of incurring expenditure on increase of the share capital. We do not find any adverse inference/findings by the lower authorities in so far as this claim of the assessee is concerned. Sin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0/-. 36. The A.O has made the disallowance simply because it was disallowed in the first round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, it was explained that additional octroi duty of ₹ 1,71,000/- was required to be paid in respect of the additions of Hardware etc. made to the capital block during the year under consideration. This claim of the assessee was denied by the A.O holding that the assessee itself has admitted that the octroi payment of ₹ 1,71,000/- is of capital in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of physical verification carried out by them, a demand of ₹ 1,71,000/- being additional octroi was raised and paid by the assessee. Although necessary details were not furnished before the A.O. However, the payment was duly supported by other documentary and substantial evidences and on the basis of which in the first round of litigation, the ld. CIT(A) directed the A.O to allow depreciation. 38. We fail to understand why the amount has been disallowed in the present litigation. Once, it h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground raised in appeal that disallowance of depreciation was based not on facts but only on conjectures and surmises and was not valid. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 2,09,69,161/- simply following orders of his predecessors in earlier years when the same is set aside and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llowing his predecessors' orders when the same is set aside and restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer as per Hon'ble ITAT's orders dated 15th October, 2010 in ITA No. 1507 & 1681/Ahd/2005. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing deferred revenue expenditure of ₹ 1,59,028 for this year only, when no such disallowance is called for. 6. On the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prejudice, the procedure adopted by the CIT(A) as described hereinabove has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and has in turn resulted also in denial of justice. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice, for the point taken in the preceding grounds the order of the C1T(A) cannot stand and deserves to be reversed. 41. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing ground nos. 1, 3, 8, 9 & 10. All t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2 of that appeal. For our detailed discussion therein, we direct the A.O to delete the addition of ₹ 21,12,514/-. 46. Ground no. 5 relates to the disallowance of ₹ 1,59,028/- being treated as deferred revenue expenditure. 47. An identical issue has been considered and decided by us in ITA No. 1452/Ahd/2014 qua ground no. 4 of that appeal. For our detailed discussion therein, we direct the A.O to delete the addition of ₹ 1,59,028/-. 48. Ground no. 6 relates to the disallowance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.O disallowed and made addition of ₹ 3,08,76,140/-. 50. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended that the copies of ledger account as required were given which gave the details of the nature of transactions. It was explained that the transaction with M/s. Global Finance was on account of sale proceeds towards software development charges. After considering the facts and the submissions, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not demonstrated that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

us. No doubt that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the assessee need not give the reasons for the write off but at the same time the assessee has to demonstrate that the debt has been taken on the income side in the earlier years as per the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act, no such demonstrative evidence has been furnished, neither before the lower authorities nor before us. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 6 is acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities – Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Forum: GST Invoice

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version