"CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore ."
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of Section 11 exemption does not bar consideration of deductions under Section 57(iii) after factual verification.
ITAT Mumbai remanded the case to examine whether Section 56(2)(x) applied based on the agreement date and to consider refund of excess tax paid.
ITAT Bangalore remanded a Section 69A addition after holding that an APMC commission agent’s entire sale proceeds could not be treated as income.
ITAT Bangalore deleted additions after holding that the return filed under the correct PAN could not be ignored due to the existence of a duplicate PAN.
ITAT Bangalore deleted the Section 69A addition after holding that member details established the source of cash deposits made during demonetisation.
ITAT held no TDS was required as the Revenue failed to prove the services made technical knowledge available under the India-US DTAA.
The ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. The benefit cannot be restricted to one new house merely because multiple houses were transferred.
ITAT held that failure to obtain a tax audit does not automatically justify rejecting books and estimating profit at 8% without proper examination.
ITAT held that a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act cannot be taxed at the maximum marginal rate under Section 167B.
ITAT held that interest earned from scheduled and co-operative banks was attributable to the society’s business of providing credit facilities and qualified for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
