Recently Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited (WP (Civil) no. 5003/2013 dated : 21.02.2014 that ITAT has no power to grant stay beyond 365 days in light of third proviso to Sec. 254(2A) inserted by Finance Act, 2008. High Court further held that Courts must respect legislative mandate.
Assessee can claim exemption under section 54EC on transfer of depreciable assets held for more than thirty-six months by investing in bonds notified for the purpose of Section 54EC. Further the assessee can claim exemption upto Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by investing the gain in the bonds notified under section 54EC if he invests Rs. 50,00,000/- each in two separate financial years but within six months from the date of transfer.
Recently Advocate B. S. K. Rao has file an RTI Application with Office of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (CPC), Bangalore and Requests to provide details of Wrong Claims reported in Form No.3CD uploaded to e-filing website of Income-Tax Department for the Assessment Year 2013-14, in respect of return filed in ITR-4 & ITR-5.
ACIT vs. Shri Damodar Dass Batra (ITAT Delhi) – The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,23,263/- made by the A.O. without considering the fact that these commission expenses are bogus and fictitious and could not be fully substantiated by the assessee.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order imposing penalty does not disclose that prior approval of the Joint Commissioner was obtained in either of the two cases. He drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of AWT No. 4 of 2003 and AWT No. 5 of 2003
Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Casting. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that Assessee has received cash loans on various days aggregating to Rs 8,89,000/- from Shri Ramusingh Badoria, the Director, of the Assessee.
The Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the assessee had continued to show the admitted liabilities in its balance sheet, the same could not be treated as cessation of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities were outstanding for last many years, it could not be inferred that the said liabilities has ceased to exist.
We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the Assessee was having sufficient interest free funds and therefore there was no justification for presuming that any part of interest bearing loan has been utilized for the purpose of making investments.
The assessee company is a builder and developer of residential and commercial projects. It was noted by the AO that the assessee company is a partner in several “partnership firms”. The AO had made a list of all those firms along with profit sharing ratio of the assessee in those firms.
CA Sandeep Kanoi CBDT has changed the procedure for issue of PAN Card w.e.f. 03.02.2014 and has made it mandatory to submit self- attested copies of proof of identity, address and date of birth documents and also to produce original documents for verification vide its Notification No. F.No: oPAN/1/3/2003/Part Dated: 24.1.2014 and vide Press Release […]
