Total dues payable by the Bank consisted of principal component and interest component. The principal Component being a loan in respect of which no deduction, benefit or loss was either claimed or allowed, was transferred to Capital Reserve Account and interest component was duly credited to the Profit and Loss Account and also offered to tax as income within the meaning of section 41(1) of the Act. The loan received is a capital receipt and it does not lose its capital nature even when it is renounced or waived by the lender.
ITO Vs Suresh Chand Ravi Datt (ITAT Jaipur) There is not dispute that the business of the assessee dealing in food grains, oil seeds and pulses etc is a seasonal business depending upon crop seasons. Therefore, during the non harvesting season the assessee is not having much business activity and accordingly the funds which are […]
Under section 2(47)(v ) any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken over or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the 1882 Act would come within the ambit of section 2(47)(v).
Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of 3,90,370/- on 3.10.2007. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) on 31.12.2009 determining the total income at 6,90,370/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for not considering the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of IT Act.
It is not discernable whether the interest paid for the acquisition of the impugned property has been claimed by the assessee under Chapter IVC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, namely ‘income from house property’. If the assessee had already claimed interest under the head income from house property, the same interest cannot be capitalized and added to the cost of acquisition of the property.
Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that it is need not be to compute Minimum Alternate Tax when the assessee maintaining books of accounts under the regulatory act instead of companies act under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961.
M/s. Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that commission was paid to Mr. Bhawarlal Sharma, whole time Director of the Company, for the services rendered by him to the Company. The Director has rendered technical services to the assessee company. The commission so paid is for the services […]
The assessee further contended that additions cannot be made towards purchases merely on the basis of third party information ignoring the evidences filed to justify purchases. The assessee further contended before the lower authorities that the assessing officer neither pointed out any error or discrepancy in the books of account nor did make out any case of sales made outside the books of account.
DCIT Vs Shri Subhash Gandhi (ITAT Amritsar) An order passed u/s 127 of the Act is not appealable before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the first appellate authority has no jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of an order passed u/s 127, transferring the jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer (AO) to another, it is, but, […]
Merely because assessee-company had claimed deduction of expenditure without deducting TDS on interest payment, which was not accepted by Revenue, by itself, would not attract the levy of penalty.
