In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce VS Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi High Court has held that provision made by bank for interest on overdue deposits can’t be disallowed.
Export Obligation Period with pre- import condition from the date of clearance of each import consignment by Customs Authority- With this Public Notice, inputs/import items specified in Appendix 4J his been amended.
Shri Ramesh Salecha HUF Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Revenue could not produce before us any evidence to show that notice under sections 143(2) has been issued or served to the assessee the re-assessment made under sections 143(3) read with section 147 is void ab-initio in view of the above decisions of the Honorable Allahabad High Court in […]
Where assessee had not earned any tax-free income, then, corresponding expenditure also could not be worked out for dis allowance.
Process of generation of electricity is akin to manufacture or production of an article or ‘thing’, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) on windmill even prior to amendment of section 32(1)(iia) by Finance Act, 2012 as said amendment is only clarificatory in nature.
Rajkot bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that the notebooks and diaries found from assessee’s wife cannot be treated as Books of Accounts for the purpose of making addition under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/s. Essel Pro pack Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assesses has incurred expenses on behalf of certain foreign subsidiaries and Indian subsidiary and shown them under the head Advances Recoverable. The assessee has not made any non business advance to the these companies, but these amount represents various debits in the nature of sale of […]
Where assessee had failed in establishing the creditworthiness of the donors, occasion for making the gifts and why the donors who were strangers and not men of means gifted such huge amounts to the assessee- HUF out of love and affection, therefore, addition made by AO was justified.
Pr. CIT Vs. National Informatics Center Services Inc. (Delhi High Court) Date of filing of the return of income is 25-09-2009. Therefore, the notice served on the taxpayer u/s 143(2) on 26-08-2011 is beyond the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. Therefore, the notice […]
The objection of the revenue that the assessee intentionally waited for mechanical lapse of 36 months and deliberately put the date on agreement as 18-11-2009 to avoid the payment of tax is not tenable.
