Loss incurred on account of error trades in respect of dealings of clients and not on own account and the loss incurred in course of carrying on share broking business was in line with accepted market practices, therefore, disallowance of Rs. 35,82,623/- on account of loss on share trading and ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/-, not supported by any reasonable basis had been rightly deleted by CIT(A).
Dispatch of the appeal by assessee on 02.12.2019 was within the extended period of limitation of one month and, therefore, without considering the prayer for condonation of delay of assessee, respondent No.1 ought not to have rejected the appeal as being time barred by taking the ground that he had no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the extended limitation period of one month.
Inox India Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Conclusion: Since on noticing that the declaration of intent on the shipping bill for claiming the benefit under the reward scheme was made mandatory w.e.f 01.06.2015 under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 or the Handbook of Procedure, 2015-20, therefore, there could be no exclusion […]
Sungrow Impex Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: CIT had recorded his satisfaction for reopening of the assessment in a most mechanical manner without considering even the assessment records or the return of income filed by assessee and his satisfaction appeared to be in a ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. Therefore, such approval […]
The constituent temples function under the aegis of the HR&CE Act and the ‘body’ or ‘authority’ as referred to in Section 10(23BBA) would be the HR&CE department only. Moreover, the proviso to Section 10(23BBA) specifically excludes temples and other religious institutions functioning under the management of the ‘body’ or ‘authority’ from the scope of exemption, stating that they fell within the ambit of taxability.
Only those investments which had yielded dividend income for computing the average value of investments would be considered for the purpose of computing the amount of disallowance u/s 14A.
Notice invoking arbitration was issued 5 1/2 years after rejection of the claims on 04.08.2014. Consequently, the notice invoking arbitration was ex facie time barred, and the disputes between the parties could not be referred to arbitration.
Since there was no response by the appellant at any stage either when the cheques were issued, or after the presentation to its banker, or after the legal notices were served informing the appellant that both the cheques on being presented to its banker were returned with a note that it could not be honoured because of “insufficient funds” and there was no evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration, therefore, the High Court had not committed any error in recording the finding of guilt of the appellant and convicting her for an offence being committed under Section 138 under its impugned judgment.
Amount of income which qualifies for deduction is the profits of the business of the undertaking and not any income earned by assessee de hors the business of the undertaking. If the relevant items of income are held to be falling under the head `Income from other sources’, the same will not qualify for deduction under sectio 10A, 10AA.
Where AO had estimated value of accommodation entries devoid of any documentary evidences or material, the same could not be sustained. Since in the case of the assessee the payment of Rs.6,43,406/- was considered as accommodation entries and it was noticed that assessee had not reconciled this payment with outstanding amount of Rs.7,91,406/- as per invoice raised for labour charges, therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of Rs.6,43,406/-.
