Complete Guide To The Law Of Disallowance U/s 14A And Rule 8D
Section 14A And Rule 8D enjoy the dubious distinction of being amongst the most contentious provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is a bewildering deluge of judgements from various Courts and Tribunals. The authors have done the admirable task of cataloging all the important judgements under their respective propositions in an easy-to-retrieve format
M/s. Nandini Delux vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
(i) S. 153A: Even in non-pending assessments where no incriminating material is found, AO is not limited to assessing "undisclosed" income, (ii) revenue expenditure on leased premises is not hit by sub-section (1A) to s. 32 or Explanation 1 to s. 32, (iii) Even income voluntarily disclosed in search is liable for 2. 234B/C interest
(i) The circumstance where proceedings are not pending and no incriminating material is found in the course of search has been left unanswered by the Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del). In this case, the Court has held that even if the assessment order has been passed in respect of […]
ACIT vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 194-I: Lease premium and additional Floor Space Index (FSI) charges paid to MMRDA is not "rent" for TDS
It is the real nature of the arrangement or transaction, and not merely the words or phrases employed, even as cautioned by the apex court in Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. (supra), i.e., the substance of the transaction, that is relevant and paramount. The amount charged by MMRDA as lease premium is equal to the rate […]
Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
(i) Dharmada collections are not taxable as income, (ii) S. 50C does not apply to the purchaser of property
(i) It is not disputed that Dharmarth receipts are not taxable. This is as per the CBDT Circular (supra), as also the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. Gheru Lal Bal Chand, (1978) 111 ITR 134 (P&H) iii. Addl. CIT Vs. Channoo Lal […]
R. K. Jain vs. Chairman, Settlement Commission (Delhi High Court)
A statutory order, even if a nullity, continues to be effective unless set aside by a competent authority. Such orders cannot be nullified by an administrative order
The principal controversy to be addressed is whether the Chairman of the Income Tax Settlement Commission could, as administrative head of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, declare the order passed by the CPIO and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax directing information to be supplied to the Petitioner, as being void ab-initio. HELD by the High […]
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:CIT vs. Sulzer India Limited (Bombay High Court)
S. 41(1): Payment of Net Present Value of sales-tax deferral loan does not constitute a taxable "benefit"
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment