Income Tax Judgements
Showing or not of sufficient cause for condonation of delay
CA Pawan Goswami 04 September 2008 at 11:47
Where there is sufficient cause shown and the application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafidely, the Court would normally condone the delay but where the delay has not been explained at all and, in fact, there is unexplained and inordina
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT, 1961
CHEZHIYAN 30 August 2008 at 13:05
the provision impugned is validly enacted and not hit by legislative incompetence of Central Legislature.
ROLL OVER CHARGES IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CON
CHEZHIYAN 30 August 2008 at 13:05
the assessee is entitled to deduction of roll over charges under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
S. 30 of the Income-tax Act
CA.Tarun Maheshwari 27 August 2008 at 18:45
The assessee was engaged in the business of running a hotel. During the year under consideration it had spent a sum of Rs.7.06 lacs on construction of glass curtain wall on the front side of the hotel, which was in addition to the existing building w
no tax shall be deducted at source under section 194-I
Miss Komal Mantri 20 August 2008 at 02:03
S. 54EC _Exemption cannot be denied when investment made in
CA.Tarun Maheshwari 20 August 2008 at 02:03
During the relevant assessment year, the assessee invested her capital gains income in notified bonds and claimed exemption u/s.54EC. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption on the ground that the investment in the bonds was in the joint names whi
S. 10B, S. 32(2) and S. 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
CA.Tarun Maheshwari 20 August 2008 at 02:03
For the relevant assessment year, the assessee, engaged in the business of IT-enabled accounting services and software development, claimed set-off of carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against the income of the unit on which d
Eligibility for claiming capital gains exemption u/s 54 F
Miss Komal Mantri 20 August 2008 at 02:03
Liaility of TDS not advised by CA_Penalty cancelled
CA.Tarun Maheshwari 19 August 2008 at 01:48
the assessee had made certain payments for fabrication charges, but had not deducted tax at source. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C. The contention of the assessee was that it was not advised b
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
CAclubindia
