ITAT judgments

  • May
  • 15

No Penalty on Gift of Resurgent India Bonds from Non Relative NRI

Gift was received by the assessee in the form of India resurgent bonds amounting to USD 10,000. Bonds were duly certified by Certificate No. 0066493 and Register Folio No. of transferor RIB-417865 issued by SBI. The donor has filed confirmation of gift. The assessee has also filed copy of letter from State Bank of India [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 14

Loan Prepayment charges allowed as deduction from house property income

The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 11.05 crore u/s 24(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not allow deduction of Rs. 1.56 crore paid as prepayment charges for the closure of the loan account which was taken for acquisition of property fetching the extant house property income. Under these circumstances the question arises as [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 13

No penalty for mere change in head of income

We are of the considered opinion that the transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return. Some of the income was shown as long-tern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business in shares/scripts trading. As per the annexures, the [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 13

S.14A Addition in Excess of Expenses debited to P/L a/c not permissible

We find that the AO has made disallowance on the basis of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, but no disallowance can be made or sustained in excess of the expenses debited in the profit & loss account.

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 13

Notice served on CA of an assessee who was not specifically authorised to accept the same can’t be said to be served validly

We find that the AO has not claimed that Shri Devang Shah, CA was authorised to receive any notice on behalf of the assessee-firm or was the representative of the assessee or that any power of attorney was executed by the assessee firm in favour of the said Chartered Accountant.

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 12

Expense by tenant on house property repairs cannot be included in ALV

In the present set of facts, we have noted that the AO had considered the impugned repair expenditure as annual rent in the hands of the assessee which was without any basis. As far as the assessee was concerned, the deduction @ 30% is like a standard deduction as prescribed u/s.24(a) of IT Act, not necessarily incurred towards repairs of the house property as held in the case of JB Patel & Co. 118 ITD 556.

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 12

S.269SS not applies to transfer between two accounts by Journal Entry

Section 269SS is attracted when the loan or deposit taken or accepted otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft and in the Explanation (iii) below Sec.2 69SS, it is mentioned that loan or deposits means “loan or deposit of money” and transfer between two accounts by way of journal entry does [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 12

CENVAT credit written off on surrender of Excise Registration Certificate is allowable as deduction u/s 37

In the facts of the present case, the assessee had paid CENVAT on purchase of raw material which was deposited in its PLA account for claiming the benefit of set off against the excise duty payable on the manufactured items i.e. branded yearn. The assessee was paying higher rate of excise duty on the raw [...]

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 11

S. 54/54F exemption available on Investment in purchase of plot/land for construction of house

Exemption claimed by the assessee under S.54 of the Act cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee has not utilised the sale consideration received from the sale of flats itself, in purchasing the plot. Law is well settled by the judicial precedents that investment in purchase of pot for construction of house would entitle an assessee to claim exemption u/s.54 or 54F of the Act. Board’s circular No.667 dated 18.10.1993 also says so.

Read the Full Article

  • May
  • 11

S. 40(a)(ia) TDS – Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping does not lay down correct law

debates in the Parliament are ordinarily not considered as the aids for interpretation of the ultimate provision which may be brought into the statute. The debates at best indicate the opinion of the individual members and are ordinarily not relied upon for interpreting the provisions, particularly when the provisions are plain. We are conscious that [...]

Read the Full Article