The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2005-06 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-18/T-62/ITO 19(3) (2)/10-11 dated 14/01/2013 qua confirmation of certain addition on account of cash credit u/s 68 for Rs.4 Lacs.
In view of the aforesaid fact and findings we hold that the write off of bad debt of Rs. 56,94,685/- would be squarely allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act and the ld. AO is directed accordingly to grant the same.
It is settled law that the disallowance on account of ad hoc basis is not permissible under the provision of the Act. If the AO is not satisfied with the submission of assessee then he has to make the disallowance after making specific reference to such documents / vouchers. AO cannot just make the disallowance on ad hoc basis without pointing out any defect / error in the submission of assessee.
It has been decided that furnishing of Permanent Account Number (PAN), which hitherto was not to be insisted upon while putting through permissible current account transactions of up to USD 25,000, shall now be mandatory for making all remittances under Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS).
These four appeals are preferred by the revenue against the four separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) all dated 27th July, 2016 for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 and since a common issue involved therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order.
This is an appeal by the Assessee directed against the order dated 22.12.2016 of the ld. CIT, Exemptions (ld. CIT(E)), Kolkata relating to A.Y.2016-17, wherein the ld. CIT(E) has passed an order rejecting grant of the approval u/s 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (here nafter referred to as the Act).
Principal CIT Vs Ms Blb Cables And Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Assessee has incurred losses from the off market commodity transactions and the AO held such loss as bogus and inadmissible in the eyes of the law. The same loss was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). However we find that all the […]
Minda SM Technocast Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 1. In the present case, the assessee has acquired shares of TEPL at Rs.5 per shares. The shares were acquired by the assessee from three companies as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The assessee claimed to have valued the shares of TEPL as per the provisions […]
Housing loan limits for eligibility under priority sector lending will be revised to ₹ 35 lakh in metropolitan centres (with population of ten lakh and above), and ₹ 25 lakh in other centres, provided the overall cost of the dwelling unit in the metropolitan centre and at other centres does not exceed ₹ 45 lakh and ₹ 30 lakh, respectively.
Addition u/s 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of tax on payments of commission to non-resident/foreign commission agents ignoring the facts that commission paid foreign commission agents is deemed to accrue or arise in India, which required deduction of tax as per section 195 of the I.T.Act..
