DCIT Vs. M/s. Chadha Builders & Properties (ITAT Delhi) Service Tax is not an allowable deduction from Income from house property. But it is true that the assessee has paid Service Tax & it was not recovered from tenants and it has also filed the return of service tax. Service tax has been paid into […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, recently ruled that advances given to the directors of a Company for purchase of land cannot be treated as deemed dividend Under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the land is transferred to the company within time.
Jaycees Public School Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) We do not find that assessee is not engaged in the educational activities as merely charging of the fees does not make it existing for the purposes of the profit.
Assessee has contended that the impugned property had been transferred to her daughter as a gift and therefore charging Long Term Capital Gains applying provisions of Section 50C is bad in law. In its written submission on behalf of the assessee, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has contended that the intention of the […]
Cash in hand referred to in Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset.
Revised grounds of appeal were filed by the assessee, which are placed on record. Amongst various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee, main grievance and issue raised by the assessee-appellant before this Tribunal relates to validity of the proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Ahmedabad bench of the ITAT observed that the activities of the Gujarat Environment Service Society are charitable in nature. The main issue before the Tribunal was that whether the assesse is entitled for benefit of section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not. Section 11(1)(a) is about exemptions related to charity.
M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The present stay petition is filed seeking further extension of the stay of demand. Admittedly there is change of the circumstances from the first stay order, since this Tribunal had disposed of the appeal involving identical issue for earlier years against the assessee. Therefore, the principle […]
Addition made on the basis of a print out taken from the computer of a third party without there being no other corroborative evidence brought on record to prove the fact that the payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee, not sustainable.
We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee company has already declared the dividend of ₹ 5.40 crores and hence, it cannot be doubted that the payment of dividend was made in the guise of commission to the directors.
