Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All ITAT

Revenue expenses u/s 37 allowed in same year, AO not authorized to treat as deferred revenue expenditure

February 4, 2016 1669 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. that this issue is squarely covered by assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4776/Del/2010 vide order dated 20.02.2015, for the assessment year 2006-07 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in which it was held that

Subsidy for wind power project being capital receipts neither taxable u/s 41(1) / 50 nor to be deducted in actual cost u/s 43

February 2, 2016 1656 Views 1 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. UniDeritend Limited vs. ACIT that the subsidy being provided to the assessee to encourage the setting up of wind mill to promote generation of energy through non conventional sources, thus, is to be treated as capital receipt.

Municipal value is a bonafide method to determine ALV even if market value of rent is higher

February 2, 2016 3866 Views 1 comment Print

M/s NRB Bearing Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) Municipal rateable value cannot be rejected straightway.To reject the same, there must be reliable material on record.The market rate in the locality is an approved method for determining the fair rental value but it is only when the AO is convinced that the case before him is suspicious.

Lease Premium Paid to CIDCO is a Capital Expenditure, Thus Not Liable to TDS

February 2, 2016 5187 Views 0 comment Print

In the Case of Income Tax Officer (TDS) Vs. M/s Progressive Civil Engineers Private Limited, ITAT Mumbai held that Lease Premium payment made to CIDCO is to acquire capital asset being long term holding rights along with right to construct and therefore it is capital expenditure in nature.

Payments made as reimbursement towards shared technology services not subject to TDS u/s 195

January 29, 2016 1892 Views 0 comment Print

The ITAT Kolkata in the case of M/s AT & S India P. Ltd. held that the reimbursement made to holding co. by its subsidiary towards the share technology services is not taxable in the hands of receiving co. (holding co.) because the reimbursement is not an income for the holding co.

TP: Temporary price differentials occurring due to fluctuation in treatment charges should be ignored

January 29, 2016 674 Views 0 comment Print

In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. -Vs- The Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, there were several grounds on which the appeal was made, both by the revenue as well as the assessee. The major ground being of transfer pricing has been discussed hereunder.

Profit on Sale of Share immediately after conversion from Stock in Trade to Investment is Business Income

January 29, 2016 1082 Views 0 comment Print

lndo Stosec (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has converted the stock in trade into investments only in the current year and immediately sold the shares after such conversion. Accordingly, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has entertained the idea of conversion, only to avail the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and also to avail concessional rate of tax in respect of short term capital gains.

No Legal Bar on conversion of Stock in Trade to Investment

January 29, 2016 2343 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT vs. M/s. Superior Financial Consultancy Services (ITAT Mumbai)- Ld.CIT(A), for the purpose of deciding the case has elaborately discussed three main issues, namely (i) whether the assessee can legally convert its stock-in trade into investments

Assessment in the name of non-existent entity is void ab initio

January 28, 2016 2767 Views 0 comment Print

In the Case of Sapient Consulting Limited vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi relying upon the order of Jurisdictional High Court held that framing the assessment in the name of non-existent entity is not a procedural irregularity curable u/s 292B of the Act or under any other provision of the Act but it is a jurisdictional defect and hence any order passed in the name of ‘dead person’ is void ab-initio.

Actual date of transfer relevant for benefit u/s 54 if possession been given before ‘Sale Deed’

January 28, 2016 1996 Views 0 comment Print

In the case of Shashi Gupta vs. ITO, the Delhi Tribunal while considering the effective date of transfer of immovable property for the purpose of taking benefit of time limit specified u/s 54 of the Act considered the date of ‘agreement to sell’ of an immovable property as effective date of transfer of property

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