Since assessee had invested the sale consideration in construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer, deduction under section 54F could not be denied under section 54F on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in capital gain account scheme before the due date prescribed under section 139(1).
ITAT Mumbai in case of ACIT v/s M/s WTI Advanced technology held that tax is to deducted u/s 194C for outsourcing of any service which do not require skilled staff.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently ruled that technical services would not include services provided by the machines for the purpose of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ).
Upon conjoint reading of Trust Deed and SEBI directions as above, we conclude that the said expenditure was incurred by the assessee to safeguard / protect its business interest and therefore, allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 37.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in disallowing the claim o f expenditure of Rs. 1,71,67,000/- by applying section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please may be granted by deleting the entire addition Rs. 1,71,67,000/- imposed under section 40A(3)
Future Corporate Resources Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee argued that it had earned meager dividend income of Rs. 24,138 as against which, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,36,28,000 which is more than the exempt income. The assessee further argued that dis-allowance under section 14A cannot exceed amount of exempt […]
Where assessee received capital from the partner in cash, it did not tentamount to loan or deposit and therefore, penalty under section 271D was not to be levied for violation of section 269SS.
Non service of noticed is not a ground to raise the addition of bogus purchase to the income of the assessee in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. 2016 taxman.com 171 (Bombay High Court).
Both AO & CIT-A have denied the claim of exemption of Rs.40,00,000/- for want of proper evidence showing the capital gains were invested in specified bonds i.e provided by the Government of India, National Highway Authority Bonds (NHAI). The deduction u/s. 54EC of the Act is permissible if the amount representing the long term capital gain is invested in specified bonds within prescribed time.
Shiv Public School Managing Committee Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) 1. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : the application moved by the assessee society for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and for according sanction u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Act have been rejected by the […]
