Reference to DVO for determination of market value for the purpose of computation of capital gains under section 48 would be wholly redundant since main thrust of section 48 is the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset and not the fair market value thereof.
1. Research and development services provider could not be compared to a company and Transfer pricing Adjustment are not sustainable. 2. A concern mainly engaged in sale of chemical compounds could not be considered as a right comparable with that of assessee rendering support services in connection with research and development of certain products to an […]
Non-compete fee Incurred by IMPL is a capital expenditure which is in the nature of any other business or commercial rights and hence eligible for depreciation under the provisions of the Act. T
In a recent ruling, the Hyderabad ITAT ruled that non- enclosure of audit report to the return of income would not attract penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
In Shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, the ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the expenditure incurred in relation to issuance of debentures as it constitute revenue expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The two beneficiaries were minors and therefore the assessing officer has arrived at an income of Rs. 3,65,040/- as income includable under section 64(1A) of the Act. As the income of the Trust depends on the claim of expenditure made by the co-owners, the working of assessing officer in the assessment order is fair and reasonable.
AO was not justified in making addition in the hands of assessee, without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi, whose statement was relied upon for making the above additions.
ITAT Hyderabad held in the case of Sai Prasanthi Realtors & Sai Eswar Real Estates & Developers v. Dy. CIT that if assessee has obtained audit report before due date, but did not enclose audit report along with return of income due to CBDT instructions in this regard then, imposition of penalty under section 271B […]
Medical illness and that to be in the nature of the typhoid fever and UTI is definitely reasonable cause for non- appearing on the date and therefore, we are of the opinion that no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(b) in such circumstances as the same is covered under exception of ‘reasonable cause’ as enshrined in section 273B.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – III, Jaipur dated 19.02.2016 for A.Y. 2011- 12 wherein the assessee has challenged the levy penalty of Rs. 1,02,400/- u/s 272A(2)(K) of the Act.
