We serve a wide range of clientele, and every client relationship is valued greatly. Each engagement benefits from the depth and breadth of our expertise.
The Partners and members our Firm are senior professionals with years of experience behind them. They bring the highest level of professional service to clients along with the traditions of the profession, integrity and sound ethical practices.
Our team of professionals comprise of Legal Counsels with rich experience in Civil and Criminal Law, Taxation Law, Copy Rights and Intellectual Property law.
We also have on board Chartered Accountants who have specialized in Taxation, Project finance, Share Valuation and Company related work.
Update from Managing Partner
1) Income from capital gain on a transaction which never materialized is deemed as hypothetical income
Where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisaged in JDA fell through , there will be no profit or gain which arises from transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under section 45 read with section 48- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Balbir Singh Maini, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 15619 & 15622, 15624, 15620 OF 2017 & ORS., Dated OCTOBER 4, 2017
2) ITAT allowed depreciation claim to lessor even if asset was leased out to same co. from where it was purchased
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd.
I.Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Allowance/Rate of (Leased assets) - Assessment year 1985-86 - Assessee company had purchased a boiler from a company, and leased out it to that very same company - Assessee claimed 100 per cent depreciation on said boiler - Assessing Officer disallowed same on ground that assessee bought and leased back asset solely for purpose of avoiding tax - It was found that lease rentals earned by assessee were subjected to tax - Further assessee even after claiming benefit of depreciation in one year had subjected itself to tax on income arising from that very transaction - Whether on facts, transaction could not be termed as dubious or colourable device, but a genuine business transaction, thus, assessee was to be allowed depreciation on boiler - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
II.Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Technical know-how) - Assessment year 1985-86 - Whether mere improvisation in process and technology in some areas supplemental to existing business, there being no new or fresh ventures, expenditure incurred is revenue in nature - Held, yes - Whether where under an agreement assessee company had obtained a technology which would enable assessee to update and improve its current process of manufacturing laminates, payment made towards acquisition of said technology was to be allowed as revenue expenditure - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
3) SC upholds levy of DDT on dividends paid by companies having agricultural income,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Union of India v. Tata Tea Co. Ltd.
When the dividend is declared to be distributed and paid to company's shareholder it is not impressed with character of source of income from which it is paid. Therefore, such dividend is not agricultural income and Parliament could not be said to have transgressed the taxing powers of state to tax agricultural income under Entry 46 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and even if such transgression is there, it is only incidental and therefore, DDT is not unconstitutional
05 October 2017
Our Lawyers and Tax experts offer a full range of Legal and Tax advisory to Small and Medium Enterprises, Multinational Corporations, Start-Up's, Public / Private Sector Undertakings, Family run Businesses, High Net Worth Individuals and Private Clients.