Appellant has been held liable as assessee in default merely due to technical flaws. Demand has been raised merely due to fault of system and in view of the CBDT’s Instruction No.5/2013 dated 08.07.2013, the demand cannot be sustained.
Expense was classified under the head major repair and maintenance on the ground that the large expense was spent on repair and maintenance but the fact is that there was no enhancement in the capacity of the plant and machinery as well as no increase in the efficiency.
ITAT Hyderabad has held in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Lanco Infratech Limited held that Mobilisation/ trade advance has been wrongly treated as trade receivable. It is not to be subjected to TP. It cannot be re-characterised as receivables. Moreover, advances given as part of contract work does not require any special addition, when […]
Since the very basis for levy and upholding of penalty under section 271C of the Act by the authorities below for assessment years 2000- 01 and 2002-03 to 2004- 05 does not survive, the orders levying/upholding the aforesaid penalty are not sustainable.
Assessee was entitled to full exemption under section 54F when the full amount was invested by the assessee even though the property was purchased in the joint names for the sake of convenience
In our considered view, without proving the nexus between the borrowed funds and its utilisation for non-business purposes, no dis allowance of interest expenditure can be made.
If during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed details of claim of exemption of the same u/s.54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to entertain those details and verify the same and if the assessee is found eligible otherwise as per the conditions u/s.54F of the Act, he is bound to allow deduction to the assessee.
Assessee was entitled to full exemption u/s. 54 when full amount was invested by assessee even though property was purchased in joint names of assessee and his brother.
In the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search, the AO had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 153A of the Act when no assessment proceedings were pending for this.
Assessee to prove that it is covered by exceptions to chargeability to tax as is provided by provisions of Section 1 15BBC of 1961 Act, namely that the assessee maintained a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed or else it is a religious trust.
