All ITAT

Penalty U/s. 271B- Turnover means Actual TO not the TO declared in return

Rajesh Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

Rajesh Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee in support of the assessee’s case is that the gross receipts of his business as declared by the assessee in […]...

Read More

AO not justified in not allowing standard deduction from annual letting value

Chand N. Bhojwani Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Chand N. Bhojwani Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) AO was bound to compute the tax payable by the assessee on the income computed by him even if it was at a lesser figure than the income returned by the assessee. AO was unjustified in not giving full effect to the assessee on having himself assessed such […]...

Read More

Subsidy for setting up industries to generate employment not to be adjusted against cost of depreciable assets

Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Only if subsidy or other grant was given to offset the cost of an asset, such payment would be covered by Explanation 10 to section 43(1). In the instant case where subsidy was received as an incentive for setting up industries to generate employment, the mere fact that […]...

Read More

Interest u/s 201(1A)- Up to Date of Payment or date of filing return of income?

Medicare TPA Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (TDS),(ITAT Kolkata)

Medicare TPA Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT-TDS (ITAT Kolkata) Interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act could be charged only upto the date of payment of taxes by the deductees and not upto the date of filing of return of income. We find lot of force in this argument of the ld AR in as […]...

Read More

Penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) can be levied for non-compliance of Section 131(IA)

Young Indian Vs Addl. DIT (Inv.) (ITAT Delhi)

Young Indian Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi) It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 131(1) and provisions of section 131(1A) are different and since the provisions of section 272A(1)(c) prescribe levy of penalty for non-compliance to provisions of section 131(1) only and since there is no provision [&...

Read More

S. 10B STPI Commissioner approval should be construed as Board approval

Limtex Infotech Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

As per section 10B for an undertaking to be eligible as 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, it should fulfill the following conditions: i) The undertaking must have approved by the Development Commissioner ii) The approval so granted by the Development Commissioner should be subsequently ratified by the Board of Approval for Export Oriented...

Read More

Interest on Loans for Investment in Agricultural Land not allowable

ACIT Vs M/s. Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P) Ltd. (ITAT Cochin)

Interest expenditure could be allowed only if the loan was borrowed for the purpose of the business of the assessee and if it is used for the purchase of an asset which yielded exempted income, that interest expenditure cannot be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act....

Read More

Appeal filed with ITAT signed / verified by ex-director of company not valid

UB Ostan (India) Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

UB Ostan (India) Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) It is clearly evident that an appeal u/s 253 to the Tribunal is required to be filed in prescribed Form No. 36 and the same is to be signed by the persons specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 45. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 45, […]...

Read More

PMS Fees deductible from Capital Gain

Joy Beauty Care (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

Joy Beauty Care (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Ld. CIT(A) had accepted that the gains on sale of shares through Portfolio Management Services (PMS) providers to be taxed under the head capital gains. Against these findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has not preferred the appeal before us as per the material available […]...

Read More

Sec. 206C Orders passed after reasonable period are void despite no limitation period

ITO Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (ITAT Jaipur)

ITO Vs Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (ITAT Jaipur) A consistent view has been taken by the various Hon’ble High Courts on this issue that when no limitation is provided in the statute then a period of four years is considered as reasonable for passing the order U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The provisions of Section 206C […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,863)
Company Law (4,056)
Custom Duty (7,073)
DGFT (3,759)
Excise Duty (4,159)
Fema / RBI (3,527)
Finance (3,732)
Income Tax (28,078)
SEBI (2,948)
Service Tax (3,403)

Featured Posts