ITAT Mumbai held in M/s Hiranandani Builders Vs ITO that the followings receipts were also eligible for deduction u/s 80IA considering the same to be profits from undertakings: 1.Interest on IT refund 2.Other Interest 3. FDR Interest 4. Tender fees
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Lakshya Seth vs. ITO that CIT cannot remand the matter to the AO to decide whether findings recorded are erroneous. In the case where there is inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry
ITAT Amritsar held In the case of M/s Dev Raj Hi-Tech Machines Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is apparent that assessee had made a surrender as additional income over and above the normal profits of the concern and since the income has been declared as business income
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of ITO vs. M/s LGW Ltd that share application money is only in the nature of an offer to buy shares made by the assessee. It is only after the offer is accepted by the company; the Assessee becomes the shareholder in a company.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Ravi Spice Processors P. Ltd vs. ACIT that amendment to Sec. 40(a) (ia) whereby a second proviso was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-4-2013 which state that if the payee has considered the income in return of income and tax has been paid by the payee
After notification of ICDS, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Board of Direct Taxes by the stakeholders that certain provisions of ICDS may need further clarification/ guidance for proper implementation. These implementation issues raised by the stakeholders have been referred to an expert committee comprising of departmental officers and professionals and the committee is currently examining these issues.
Issue- The Assessing Officer has denied the exemption under section 11/12 to the assessee on the ground that the objects of the assessee Trust have been amended after the grant of Registration under section 12A of the Act without getting itself re-registered
The respondent assessee had claimed depreciation in respect of its machinery valued at Rs.16.96 lacs which was used in its business of refining edible oil. The machinery had not been used during the assessment year as the respondent has discontinued its business of refining edible oil.
In the matter of State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another1 , it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that gratuity and pension are not bounty and it is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property.
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of Shri Mohd. Imran Baig & others vs. ITO that it is now settled in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shantilal Motilal V/s. CIT (365 ITR 389)
