AO admitted that the entire amount which was added to income of assessee on protective basis was already assessed in the hands of the overseas companies on substantive basis
On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is an agent of the Government of Maharashtra, without appreciating the facts that there is no evidence/documents substantiating that the Principal-Agent-Relationship exists between the assessee and the government of Maharashtra.
Kamla Devi Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) was not a procedural error which could have been corrected in the wake of deeming provisions of section 292BB. Thus, assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 was quashed. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed […]
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 139(1) Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80 Return of income–Requirement to file return electronically–Return filed manually–Claim for set-off and carry forward of losses Conclusion: Simply because the assessee could not file the return electronically within the provisions of section 139(1), the benefit of set-off and carry forward of losses could not be denied for the reason that the assessee did file return of income manually within the due date specified under section 139(1).
Miss Indira Vasanji Shah Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) owners of the plot have authorised the developer to take the plot and the moment the assessee has booked the flat and flat has been allotted to the assessee, a valuable right has created. It is a capital asset and that right continued till the assessee entered […]
On the facts and circumstanced of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,21,09,600 holding that the provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked in this case when there was a transfer of immovable property in view of the provisions of section 2(47)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee and in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs.3,55,234/- made u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D.
These two appeals filed by the assessee relate to the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since common issue is raised in both the appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that creditors do fall within the category of specified persons contemplated in section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Short question before us is, whether payment of interest at the rate of 18% to such persons on the loans availed from them is excessive or not, having regard to the fair market value of such loans.
There is no condition for co-operative society to be engaged in the activity of providing credits to the members or banking business for availing of the deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
