Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All ITAT

S.68 Addition cannot be made merely because Investor Company was from Kolkata

February 13, 2018 2907 Views 0 comment Print

Share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee or ask for the production of the investors for examination u/s 131 or if adverse material is found during search to prove that share application money is bogus or an arranged affair of the assessee

Amount W/off not allowable for which suit been filed till disposal of such suit

February 13, 2018 1236 Views 0 comment Print

Health and Glow Retailing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has taken premise on rent for which he has given interest-free refundable security deposit of Rs. 11,70,000 to the landlord. When the assessee could not continue with the possession, he claimed the entire amount back which was not given by the landlord, therefore he […]

Revision u/s 263 for denying Deduction u/s 80-IA is Invalid if both conditions not satisfied

February 12, 2018 1671 Views 0 comment Print

The exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions of Section 263 has been a matter of controversy. Especially when it comes to denying the deduction which has been allowed by the Assessing Officer during the course of regular assessment

Tax on Sale of land which was leased for a very long period

February 12, 2018 18591 Views 0 comment Print

Where assessee had transferred land owned by it to lessee for a long period but subsequently when the lessee company went into liquidation had transferred lease right, the same was taxable under the head Capital gains instead of Income from other sources because even though the land was transferred for a long period, the actual ownership of the land remained with assessee.

Non recovery of debtors for almost 3 years is sufficient reason to write off and claim as revenue loss

February 12, 2018 20523 Views 0 comment Print

In the case between General Capital and Holding Company Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961 is allowable in the year of actual payment as well as that of getting the necessary donation receipt.

No seizure of Jewellery If gross weight disclosed in regular return exceeds jewellery found during search

February 12, 2018 3543 Views 0 comment Print

Mrs. Nawaz Singhania Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Instruction 1916 issued by the Board with regard to seizure of jewellery has inherent foundation of undisclosed portion of jewellery that may be identified in the search. The Instruction No. 1916, therefore is describing the criteria for decision making for jewellery to be undisclosed. Accordingly, any portion of […]

In case of jointly owned property interest is allowable to the extent of share in property

February 12, 2018 3573 Views 0 comment Print

Mrs. Shardaben Bhavani Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Dis allowance of the claim of interest on housing loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- raised by the assessee u/s 24(b) in her return of income, but disallowed by the A.O and thereafter sustained by the CIT(A). We are of the considered view that as observed by us herein above, […]

No disalllowance U/s. 40A(3) for cash Payment of electricity bills of JVVNL

February 10, 2018 46308 Views 1 comment Print

Payment of electricity bills to JVVNL is held to be the payment made to the government for the purpose of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act and therefore said section 40A(3) cannot be invoked and no addition is called for and additions so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted.

ITAT explains when Share premium can be assessed as undisclosed income

February 9, 2018 5274 Views 0 comment Print

Share premium received can be assessed as undisclosed income if (a) directors are allotted shares at par while others are allotted at premium, (b) the high premium is not justified by a valuation report, (c) the high premium is not supported by the financials, (d) based on financials the value of shares is less and no genuine investor would invest at the premium, (e) there are discrepancies & abnormal features which show transaction as “made up” to camouflage real purpose

Deduction U/s. 54F for Property purchased in name of individual co-parcener by HUF

February 9, 2018 5856 Views 0 comment Print

In this case, the assessee filed the return of income admitting total income of 98,820/-. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) was carried out in the case of M/s. A.S. Steel Traders on 11.10.2012 and in the course of search, the document No.5019 of 2011 of SRO

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031