ITAT Delhi held In the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. ADIT that the said issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by tribunal decision given in earlier years in which the tribunal held that the contracts are divisible.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that the present issue, related to application of section 14A, especially in relation to shares held as trading assets
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of UCO Bank vs. DCIT that Sec.115JB will be applicable only where the assessee is required to show profit & loss account in accordance with schedule VI of Companies Act. As the banks are required to prepare Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account in accordance
ITAT Kolkata held In case of ACIT vs. M/s Prem Lal Jain that no addition could be made u/s 69 as the entire investments in shares made by the assessee have been duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which are part of the seized documents
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of ICI India Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that liability towards leave encashment is a definite liability which has accrued and arisen during the year. However, payment of the same does not fall during the relevant previous year but under the mercantile system
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Jayantilal Vaishnav HUF vs. JCIT that the reasonable cause u/s 273B need to be seen from the context of the situation where a person is reasonably and under bonafide belief of taking a action beyond his control i.e. cause which prevent a reasonable person in ordinary
Appeal filed by Assessee – The Assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in running a Super Specialty Cardiac hospital. The assessee employs two types of Doctors, viz. Full time Consultants (herewith “FTCs)
The ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Mahabir Educational Welfare Society vs. DCIT held that for claiming exemption u/s 10)(23C)(iiiad) filling of return of income as per the law applicable for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 was not mandatory as the gross receipts not exceeded Rs. 1 crore
The Assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of readymade garments and export to foreign countries. The Assessee had filed the Income Tax Return, declaring an income of Rs. 11,82,236/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ITO vs. M/s. Superline Construction P. Ltd. that the assessee had duly discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity
