"24 June 2018" Archive

Deduction U/s. 36(1)(vii) for Bad debts for income offered to tax during earlier year cannot be disallowed

Indo Nabin Proje cts Ltd. (Formerly Indo Power Projects Ltd.) Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

The very fact that balances were shown under sundry debts itself went to prove that same had emanated out of sales of assessee and hence, income relatable thereto in the form of sales and services had been duly offered to tax in the earlier years in accordance with section 36(2) and therefore, disallowance made towards bad debts was not j...

Read More

Bifurcation of consideration into land and building separately necessary for claiming depreciation

Primarc Story Venture Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Where assessee made no bifurcation of land and building and claimed depreciation on entire amount, therefore the case was remanded back to AO for bifurcating consideration into land & building and depreciation was to be allowed only on building portion....

Read More

Deduction U/s. 54F available on Payment towards construction of house prior to sale of flat

Tarun Jalali Vs Dy. DIT (ITAT Delhi)

Tarun Jalali Vs Dy. DIT (ITAT Delhi) sub-section 4 of section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration of original asset towards provision of new asset made within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new in-house property, within three years from the [&he...

Read More

Deduction U/s. 54F cannot be claimed on Capital gains arising in the hands of spouse

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Ramakant Rajaram Bodke (ITAT Pune)

Deduction under section 54F was in respect of capital gain arising in the hands of wife of assessee, should have been claimed in the return of income filed by the wife of assessee, therefore, claim of assessee under section 54F was liable to be rejected....

Read More

Merely nomenclature of expense does not conclusively determine character and nature of expense

SK. Sajjad Ali Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Moreover, it has to be kept in mind by the AO that merely because nomenclature of expense is given as ‘Labour Charges Paid’ does not conclusively determine the character and nature of the expense claimed. ...

Read More

Addition based on mere Statements during Survey without any Tangible Materials is invalid

DCIT Vs M/s. Real Strips Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)

DCIT Vs M/s. Real Strips Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) The addition was solely made on the basis of the statement furnished by the production manager of the assessee at the time of survey. The lower authorities have not brought any iota of evidence suggesting that the assessee has suppressed the production leading to suppressed sale out […...

Read More

MAT Provisions U/s. Section 115JB not applicable to sick company

B.V. Reddy Transports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. (ITAT Hyderabad)

The facts in brief qua the issue raised in the grounds are that assessee filed its return of income electronically for the AY. 2009-10 on 23-09-2009, declaring NIL income. This return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs. 69,19,580/- u/s. ...

Read More

To achieve targets Dept official ignores Principles of law & cross their limits: ITAT

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs The DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)

The present Misc. Application has been moved by the applicant – assessee pleading that though the Tribunal vide order dated 20.12.2017 had stayed the recovery of the balance amount to be recovered by the Department from the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10,...

Read More

Upfront fees paid to AAI is a commercial right entitled to depreciation @ 25%

Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Mumbai International Airport : Upfront fees paid to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a commercial right entitled to depreciation @ 25% relating to intangible assets...

Read More

No Service Tax on Commercial Construction Service by an Individual prior to 01.05.2006

Shri Bakthiyar Ahmed Vs CCE & ST (CESTAT Chennai)

The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.8/2010 dated 24.02.2010. The demand covered the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. The appellant was engaged in providing Construction Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction service...

Read More

Search Posts by Date

August 2021