"27 February 2011" Archive - Page 4

Once commissioner/brokerage is credited in P&L account of assessee broker and entire debit balance including principal and brokerage is found irrecoverable and is written off in books by assessee, same can be allowed as bad debt allowable u/s 36(1)(vii)

Madhur Shares & Stock Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Where total debt debited in the account of the client is inclusive of brokerage then brokerage being part of the total debt having been taken into account in computing the income, would satisfy the provisions of sec. 36(2) and therefore, when assessee writes off such debt then he would be entitled for deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii)....

Without rejecting books of account regularly maintained, addition cannot be made only on basis of DVO’s report

Rajhans Builders Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

If books of account are found to be correct and complete in all respect and no defect is pointed out therein and cost of construction of building is recorded therein, then the addition on account of difference in cost of construction cannot be made even if a report is obtained within the meaning of section 142A from the DVO....

Cessation of Liabilities- Liabilities reflected in balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liabilities

Nitin S. Garg Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Merely because the liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have ceased to exist. It is also a fact that the assessee has not written off the outstanding liabilities in the books of account and the outstanding liabilities are still in existence would prove that the assessee acknowled...

Penalty applicable in case of failure to disclose fully or truly all particulars of income

Shyourajsingh B Chauhan Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)

When any fact material to the determination of an item as income or material to the correct computation is not filed or that which is filed is not accurate, then the assessee would be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c)....

Royalty- Necessary ingredient for treating a payment as royalty is exclusiveness of right of a person over design or invention invented by him

ITO Vs. Patwa Kinariwala Electronics Ltd. (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Once there is no patent or any intellectual right vested in a person over a thing, no claim of royalty can be allowed to him....

It is impossible to presume that expression `licence’ provided in section 32(l)(ii) is an endless expression and even a tenancy right can be brought under it

ACIT Vs. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (ITAT Cochin)

The agreement of the assessee to acquire a rented property for running its office cannot be considered as an intangible asset similar to know how, patents, copy rights, trade marks, etc under section 32(1)(ii)....

Scope of Explanation 2 to Section 147 is such that Assessing Officer is free to re-examine correctness of a regular assessment

CIT Vs. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. (Kerala High Court)

Scope of Explanation 2 to Section 147 is such that Assessing Officer is free to re-examine correctness of a regular assessment and decide whether tax assessed, rate applied, relief and allowances granted, etc., are in terms of provisions of Act and if not, to revise assessment in terms of Section 147. Section 147, after amendment, is larg...

The expression "Tax due" in section 179(1) will not comprehend within its ambit a penalty

Dinesh T. Tailor Vs. TRO (Bombay High Court)

Where Parliament has intended to make a specific provision imposing a liability to pay penalty apart from the tax which is due and payable, a specific provision to that effect has been made; the expression "tax due" in section 179(1) cannot comprehend within the meaning of that expression a liability to pay a penalty that may have been im...

Provisional attachment of property -Section 281B provides for attachment of property of assessee only and of no one else

Gopal Das Khandelwal Vs. Union of India (Allahabad High Court)

A search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) was conducted on 9.5.2003 and 24.5.2003 on the business and the residential premises of respondent no. 5 Purshottam Das Khandelwal who happened to be the proprietor of the firm M/S Suraj Bhan Purshottam Das engaged in money lending busin...

Financiers of motor vehicles are not entitled to any deprecation much less higher rate of depreciation on such vehicles

CIT Vs. Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd. (Kerala High Court)

If the financiers have only financed or purchased the vehicle and the borrowers are the registered owners, then the financiers are not entitled to claim any depreciation because they are neither the owners of the vehicle nor have they used the vehicle in their profession or business entitling them for depreciation under section 32(1)...

Search Posts by Date

September 2023