378 ITR

Sec. 37(1), Sec. 260A, Sec. 43(3), Section 32

S.C : Whether Rs. 12,24,700/- claimed as revenue expenditure by the Association of persons which was constituted by the three partners of the erstwhile firm, MGBW, can be allowed as permissible deduction in the hands of the said Association of persons under Section 37 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, as being laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the said Association of Persons?

Supreme Court Of India Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT, Mysore Section : 37(1), 32, 43(3), 260A Madan B. Lokur […]

Uncategorized

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Has any assessee in this category filed the return before 7th August 2015? If yes, whether the assessee is required to file fresh return after the format of audit report has been prescribed by 7th August, 2015, as Form No.4 was available on 1st August 2015, Form No.5 was available on 2.8.2015 and Form No.6 was available on 7th August 2015?

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Vishal Garg vs. Union Of India Assessment Year : 2015-16 Section : 139, 119

Section 9

AAR : Whether in the stated facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act read with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Government of India and People’s Republic of China, the amount of service fee received/receivable by the applicant from Usha International Limited in terms of Agreement dated 16.11.2012 for providing services in connection with procurement of goods by Usha International Limited from vendors in China and other related services provided in China is taxable in India and the applicant is liable to pay tax thereon in India?

Authority For Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi Guangzhou Usha International Ltd., In Re Section : 9 Justice V.S. Sirpurkar,

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security