ITAT Jaipur held that denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of return before due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) not justified since aggregate annual receipts doesn’t exceed specified limit. Accordingly, exemption granted and appeal allowed.
Raj Kumar Bothra Vs DCIT (Chhattisgarh High Court) AO should not have resorted to section 143(1) (a) and instead could have resorted to section 143 (3): Chhathisgarh HC The Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of Raj Kumar Bothra vs. DCIT, has ruled that an Assessing Officer (AO) should not have resorted to Section 143(1)(a) […]
All these appeals were filed for AY 1991-92. Appellants were shareholders in the company. Earlier all three share holders were successful before CIT (A). Appeal were filed before tribunal. The sole legal issues that arises relates to the computation of cost of acquisition under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an asset distributed on liquidation of the Company, the asset being the immovable property at 552, Mount Road, Madras that belonged to the Company. The appellants had purchased 120 shares of the Company at the rate of Rs.21,000/- per share in the Company. The Company went into voluntary liquidation on 21.05.1990.
In the matter above-mentioned NCLAT have held that pre-existing dispute between the ex-director and its management company, could not have been resolved by the NCLT under the Code.
Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B could not be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself was invalid. Thus, no request could be made by Department for information relating to period prior to 01.04.2011 in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA.
Telangana High Court held that law of limitation [Limitation Act, 1963] applies even for claims under the Interest on Delayed Payment to the Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. Accordingly, instant appeal stands partly allowed.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the audit report filed in form 10B to be available with the Assessing Officer before the assessment proceedings take place, the requirement of Law is satisfied. Thus, exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that amount withdrawn by the assessee in the capacity of the partner from the partnership firm cannot be treated in the nature of loan and advance and cannot be covered within meaning of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that no addition under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act warranted due to difference between stamp duty value and sale consideration is less than tolerance band of 10% as per proviso to section 43CA. Also held that amendment providing tolerance band of 10% is retrospective in nature.
A petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has been filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi, against Vishal Mega Mart Ltd., one of India’s leading retail chains. The petition has been moved by Zuree Diseno Pvt. Ltd., an operational creditor, through Advocate Karan Singh Choudhary (Founder of Unity Law Attorneys), alleging a default in payment of operational dues amounting to ₹1.3 crore.
