Join our webinars on GST Tribunals preparation. Learn to grow your IDT practice and prepare for GSTAT with expert guidance. Register now for ₹899 + GST!
Saif Ali Khan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -With regard to the deduction of Society charges, we find that it has also been disallowed by the AO on the ground that since a flat amount of 30% of annual value is allowed, no other deduction is allowable. However, we find that sec. 24(a) reads as under B
Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Delhi I.T.A. No. 3238/Del/2009 A.Y. : 2004- 05 ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.3.2009 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- “On the facts and […]
Navine Fluorine International Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of fluorine and other refrigerant gases. During the survey operation under section 133A it was noticed that the assessee had received payments on account of sale of scrap. The assessee company had not collected tax (TCS) at the time of receipt […]
JCIT Vs M/s Videocon Industries (ITAT Mumbai) – It is seen on perusal of the assessment records of assessment year 1999-2000 that the loss on sale of shares on SMS Pharmaceuticals has been declared as long term capital loss. This shows that the transaction in respect of the purchase and sale of shares of SMS Pharmaceuticals are nothing but transfer of capital asset and not part of the business of the assessee company. This fact is evident from the assessment records of previous assessment years wherein the shares have been shown as investments. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee company that the said loss of Rs.95,00,000/- should be allowed as a business loss and thereby writing it off as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowable as the conditions laid down by section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied by the assessee company .
S K Bothra & Sons, HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) – When the assessee has discharged the initial burden to prove the loan transaction, the addition made by the AO based on the report of the Inspector without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the alleged information, is not correct.- In our view, equity and justice demand that the full text of the information given by the Inspector to the Assessing Officer which is the basis of the conclusion of the assessment should be made known to the assessee before the same is used against him so that the genuineness of the said information can be rebutted by the appellant-assessee or at least, the assessee can get an opportunity to explain the said information.
DCIT Vs M/s Toyoto Boshoku Automotive (I) Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)- By virtue of Board Circular No.261 dt.8.8.79 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank in 238 ITR 889, we find that it is a settled law that the date of presentation of the cheque should be treated as the date of payment of tax, inspite of the fact that some time was required for realization of the cheque. In the result, the appealfiled by the assessee is allowed’.8.1 In the instant case, admittedly, the cheques were presented and deposited before the authorized banker within the due date of payment of advance tax.
This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from an assessment order passed u/s. 158BC/143(3) r.w.s.254 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.12.2008 and the grounds which have been argued before us are as follows:-
The Prime Minister has asserted that the government is committed to making Right to Information more effective instrument for ensuring transparency and accountability in administration. Elaborating the need to strike a balance between request for information and limited time and resources available with public authorities, Dr. Manmohan Singh stressed that requests for information having no bearing on public interest, is not really desirable.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) enhanced the limit for retaining foreign currency abroad to 3,000 USD per transaction for exporters against the existing 500 USD vide circular no. A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.35, Dated- October 14, 2011. RBI in a statement issued in Mumbai on Friday said the decision has been taken for export related remittances received through Online Payment Gateway Service Providers (OPGSPS).
Faced with an increased and “difficult” direct taxes target of Rs 5.85 lakh crore this fiscal, the taxmen will focus on high profit-making segments of the economy, a top official said today. “These are difficult targets to achieve…We will check sections of the economy where profits are high, will compare returns (with) what they are […]
