Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All ITAT

Construction of super structure on lease hold land covered in explanation 1 to sec. 32, not of revenue nature

September 11, 2015 15933 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Chennai held In the case of The Continental Enterprise vs. ITO that as per explanation 1 to sec.32, where any business or profession is carried on in a leased building and any capital expenditure incurred for business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing any work in

PF / EPF, CPF, GPF etc. paid after due date but before ROI, cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or 36(1)(va)

September 10, 2015 4660 Views 2 comments Print

In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Supersonic Turner Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that where ESI/PF received from the employees was deposited late but before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139 (1) the amount cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or 36 (1) (va).

Forward contract loss from hedging for foreign exchange fluctuation is allowable deduction

September 10, 2015 4843 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Venus Jewel that Loss on account of forward contract entered into by the assessee to hedge against the loss arising on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction.

ITAT tone down its Remarks Against Chartered Accountants and ICAI

September 10, 2015 7872 Views 0 comment Print

The ITAT Mumbai disposing off miscellaneous application of ICAI held that the observations made by ITAT were not offensive, thus, cannot be deleted in totality. The same has been misunderstood by ICAI and ,therefore, modified suitably to ensure that the clear message that there is a need of improvement in the overall design of CA course

Assessee cannot be asked to prove something which is beyond its control

September 9, 2015 2214 Views 0 comment Print

In the case of DCIT Vs. Raj Kumar Saraogi the Kolkata ITAT held that comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when returned income is accepted as it is

September 9, 2015 9280 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied only in the cases of concealment of income in the return of income filed by the assessee. In the present case, the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A was accepted by the AO as it is which also included surrendered income not disclosed in the original return due to bonafide error.

Addition u/s 69 on account of untallied bank entries not sustainable where such entries duly recorded & reconciled in books

September 9, 2015 1922 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ITO vs. M/s Bharat Agro Industries that section 69 comes into operation only if investments are not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee which is not the case looking to the facts of the assessee wherein the bank balances are shown in the audited balance sheet

Gain on transfer of capital assets to wholly own subsidiary is not INCOME at all in Income Tax Act. Hence, even MAT is not applicable

September 8, 2015 7747 Views 0 comment Print

In the case of Venture Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT, ITAT Mumbai has held that (1) the Net profit shown in the Profit and loss account should be adjusted with the items given in Notes to accounts, meaning thereby,

Necessary Documents should be filed to prove bonafide intention when money received from overseas

September 8, 2015 738 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Kolkata held In the case of Sri Som Dutt v ACIT that whenever, the money has been received from overseas, then the onus is on the Assessee to prove that all the transactions are bonafide when he is claiming that the amount has been received as Capital Receipt.

Substantial expansion possible only on existing units-Assessee eligible for 25% Deduction U/s. 80IC not 100%

September 8, 2015 1359 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s Shree Dhanwantri Herbals vs. The ITO that the careful reading of the form 10CCB, in a serial order would clearly show that the assessee is required to inform the location of the Industry and column (c) specifically ask the assessee to state whether business is a new business

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