"28 October 2015" Archive - Page 2

Books of account cannot be rejected on the basis of general findings

The ACIT Vs Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur)

ACIT Vs. Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur)- It is contended that the order of the ld. CIT(A) will reveal that no specific defects in the books of account were found by the AO. The assessee's working site being at remote place, cash payment to labourer through self made vouchers...

Read More

Profit on sale of Agricultural Land cannot be taxed as Business Income for mere absence of Agricultural Activity

Mr.Vinod D Motiwala Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai)

Mr.Vinod D Motiwala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- AO has considered the fact that the assessee did not carry on any agricultural activity. In our view, the absence of agricultural activity cannot be considered to be the sole ground to determine the intention of the assessee....

Read More

Payment of PF, ESI made belatedly but within due date of filing of Income Tax return, cannot be disallowed u/s 43B

The ACIT Vs M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur)

ACIT Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur)- he AO disallowed the payment on the ground that though the amount was paid by the assessee but was not paid within the due date as given under the respective Acts of GPF, CPF and ESI....

Read More

S. 194H Discount by BSNL to its franchisee on recharge coupon is not commission

ITO-TDS Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad)

In the Case of ITO-TDS vs. BSNL, the Hyderabad Tribunal observed that the relationship between the BSNL and the franchisee was recognised by the CBDT by inserting third proviso to S.194H. The assessee being public sector undertaking stands on a different footing and the view taken by Delhi High Court ...

Read More

TDS on EPF and Submission of Form 15G & 15H

Simplification of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) mechanism for Employees Provident Fund Scheme (EPFS) Under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act, 1952), certain specified employers are required to comply with the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (EPFS). However, these employers are also...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Sec. 54F exemption for deposit in saving a/c instead of capital gain a/c scheme

Sri M.S. Lakshmana Rao Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

In deciding the exemption u/s 54F in the case of Sri M.S. Lakshmana Rao vs. DCIT, Hyderabad Tribunal held that non-compliance to condition of depositing sale proceeds in capital gain account scheme as required u/s 54 will not be so fatal to debar the assessee from getting benefit of section 54F....

Read More

Expenses on repairs to put new flat in habitable condition allowable U/s. 54

JCIT Vs Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya (Supreme Court of India)

JCIT vs Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya 95 ITD 313 (Mum.) Section 54 Benefit cannot be reduced proportionately merely because in the Purchase or Sell deed of Property Purchased or Sold name of a Family Member incorporated as co-owner for the sake of convenience...

Read More

5 Reasons for Investing Early in ULIPs

Wouldn’t it be great if you could buy an insurance policy that also multiplies your wealth? That’s a Unit Linked Insurance Plan (ULIP) for you. A ULIP gives you the advantage of investing in an insurance policy and a mutual fund without having to make two separate investments. They are investment products that offer good […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Representation of cases before Authority for Advance Ruling-reg.

F.No. 225/26112015/ITA.II (28/10/2015)

F.No. 225/26112015/ITA.II As per provisions of sub-section (6) of section 245R of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['Act'], the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) [hereinafter referred to as 'Authority] is required to pronounce its advance ruling, on an application made by an applicant desirous of obtaining such ruling,within six months from the ...

Read More

Shortage on sales allowable despite Shortage claim at the time of Purchase

Manikanta Concerns Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

In the case of Manikanta Concerns vs. DCIT, ITAT Hyderabad held that the shortage at the time of purchase and the shortage at the time of sale are two different issues and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that once the assessee has claimed shortage at the time of purchase...

Read More