ACIT Vs. Shri K.R. Kaviraj (ITAT Bangalore) In the light of the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 817) the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the […]
When there is direct sale transaction between two principals and there is no principal agent relationship, provisions of section 194H are not applicable
The Ld.CWT(A) should have struck off the irrelevant column and made known the assessee by mentioning for which reason the penalty was initiated. Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of WT Act are parimateria to Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). As per settled case laws non striking the irrelevant column in the notice issued u/s 18(1)(c) renders the notice invalid and consequent penalty required to be cancelled.
Joint Commissioner has failed to grant approval in terms of section 153D of the Act i.e., after application of mind but has rather carried out exercise in utmost haste and in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the approval so granted by him is not an approval which can be sustained.
Ramswaroop Saudagar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Although the land was agricultural land and situated in the limits of city of Dausa. It was developed into 23 plots of various sizes and sold during the year. The nature of land had gone irreversible change from agricultural to residential plots, therefore, we are agree with the finding […]
FCCB is akin to borrowings made by issuing debentures and both of them are different types of debt instruments only. Accordingly it was held in the case of Prime Focus Ltd. (supra), that the expenses incurred in connection with FCCB are revenue in nature.
The issue in hand pertains to addition made on account of deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Being a deeming provision, bringing to tax sums which are not actually in the nature of income but are only deemed to be so, it is to be strictly interpreted. Section 2(22)(e) of […]
Gyanchand M. Bardia Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The first dispute between the parties is qua validity of assessee’s gift claim as received from the HUF amounting to Rs. 1,02,00,000/- coming through banking channel. Both the lower authorities are of the view that an HUF does not come under the specified category of a relative in […]
Asst. Vs Sai Bhaskar Irons Ltd. Once addition under section 68 was included in gross total income, AO had to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss as provided under section 71 dealing with the set off of loss from one head against income from another head. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal […]
Where search was conducted and addition was made by AO in respect of completed assessment on the basis of the entries found recorded in regular books of account of the assessee and no material evidence was unearthed during search, AO was not justified since completed assessment could not be disturbed in absence of contrary material found during search.
