MVL Industries Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi)- Provisions of section 14A are to prevent claims of deduction of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee; that these provisions are enacted to ensure that only expenses incurred
Sandvik Asia Limited V/s. CIT (OSD)- ITAT Pune – Interest on the refund is really a part of the refund and interest and refund are not two different things. When the Income-tax Officer has passed the order under section 154 of the Act without granting interest due to the assessee
A search and seizure action was carried out at the residence of Devdas A.Alva on 13.9. 2001.During the action,a loose paper file marked A-1was seized.Pages No 1-17 contained a copy of the catering contract entered into by Apporva caterers and Ooters Club and Page No. 26 to 28 were the bills
I.T.O Vs. M/s. Shree Gouri Shankar Jute Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)-It is not in dispute that the advance was made for purchase of Jute during the course of business of the assessee. Since the supplies could not materialize, the assessee to protect its money started charging interest
since the only reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 was absence of registration u/s 12AA (which was granted to assessee society on 29.10.2010 with effect from 1.4.2010) for the relevant assessment years and on no other ground
Interest received by the assessee on account of delay in the payment of money due to it cannot be taxed separately but only as an income from business. Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi), ITA No. 3967/Del/2010, Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2015
Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer was driven to reject the book results, mainly on the ground that the profit returned on the contract receipt is very low and no stock register was maintained.
M/s Tejas Networks Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per the provision of sec. 192 of the Income-tax Act 1961, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the payment made to Cadence Designs Systems Ireland .
The facts emanating from the order of the AO and the submissions of the assessee is that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank and is engaged in banking business and the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) up to AY 2006-07 @ 100%.
The Kangra Co-operative Bank Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer disallowed the bad debts written off of Rs. 20,24,842/- on the ground that the amount of deduction claimed and allowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 3 8,00,870/- is more
