ITAT Visakhapatnam

Mere share transfer agreement does not cause effective share transfer unless accompanied with Transfer form & Share Certificates

Y.V. Ramana Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

In the case of shares of unlisted companies, transfer would take place, only when valid share transfer form in form no. 7B is delivered to the company and endorsed by the Company. Therefore, for effective transfer of shares a mere agreement for transfer of shares is not sufficient, unless it is physically transfer shares by delivery of sh...

Read More

S. 35(2AB): AO bound to grant deduction if R&D facility is approved by competent authority

Efftronics Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Provisions of section 35(2AB) of the Act, with relevant rules makes it mandatory for the assessee company to file its application for approval of its in house R&D before the Secretary, DSIR, Government of India....

Read More

Land cannot be classified as non-agricultural for mere agricultural activity absence

Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari Vs ITO, (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Whether an agricultural land held by assessee, which is suitable for agricultural operation, loses the characteristics of agricultural land merely because no agricultural operation was carried by assessee on such land?...

Read More

Section 50C Market Value on sale deed date or stamp duty value on sale agreement date

Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari, Visakhapatnam Vs ITO, Ward-3(2) (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

For determination of capital gains according to section 50C market value of property as on date of sale deed or stamp duty value as on date of agreement to sale: which has to be taken?...

Read More

Retrospective amendment in expl. 5A to Sec 271(1)(c) not applicable if original return filed before Finance Act comes into force

Nukala Ramakrishna, Eluru Vs DCIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Amendment in Explanation 5A to Sec 271(1)(c) even when made effective by Finance Act ,2009 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2007 cannot be made applicable to assessee’s case because both original return and the revised return u/s 153A of the Act have been filed before the amended provisions were brought into the statute (which rece...

Read More

Clash of titans, sec 192 Vs sec 206AA

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs Addl CIT (TDS), (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Addl CIT (TDS), ITAT Visakhapatnam) Even if there is no PAN, if the deductor has deducted TDS as per provisions of sec 192, Section 206AA does not over-ride section 192 in terms of the requirement of “at the rates specified in the relevant provisions of the Act....

Read More

For Deemed Dividend, accumulated profits do not include current year’s business profit, since it accrues only at end of year

P. Satya Prasad Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Thus, it has been held that the accumulated profits do not include current year's business profit, since it accrues only at the end of the year. Further the loan or advance treated as deemed income up to the date of fresh loan is to be reduced from the accumulated profits. Consistent with the view taken by the Ahmedabad bench in the above...

Read More

Income from even an isolated transaction of sale of land can be considered as business income of an assessee though not carrying on real estate business

Cherukuri Ramesh Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

The process of purchase of land, conversion thereof and sale, compel us to come to the conclusion that the * purchase of land, in itself, was with an intention to sell at a profit in the form of an 'adventure in the nature of trade' and hence though it is an isolated' transaction the income thereon can still be considered as business inco...

Read More

Mythri Transport Vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

M/s. Mythri Transport Vs A.C.I.T. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Whether the vehicles hired by the assessee in execution of the transport contract can be termed as a Sub-contract and consequently the assessee is liable to deduct tax from the payment made for such vehicles u/s 194C (2) of the Act the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, as per the provisions of section 194C(2), on the payment...

Read More

S. 220(2) Interest chargeable with reference to due date reckoned from original notice of demand

DCIT Vs. AS Krishna & Co. (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

It is thus clear that the entire assessment order was not set aside to enable the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment; the order passed by the first appellate authority was only to enable to the Assessing Officer to vary the assessment originally made and not to take a reiook at all the issues which were considered in the original...

Read More
Page 1 of 212

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,305)
Company Law (3,192)
Custom Duty (6,362)
DGFT (3,312)
Excise Duty (3,977)
Fema / RBI (3,107)
Finance (3,271)
Income Tax (24,127)
SEBI (2,641)
Service Tax (3,245)

Search Posts by Date

March 2017
« Feb