ITAT Lucknow in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Northern Tannery held that The commission paid to the non- resident agent for procuring order and recovering payments on the behalf of assessee could not be treated
ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case Madhav Corporation vs. ACIT that the assessee has earned additional income which amount is disclosed consequence upon the search, hence it partakes the character of business income.
In the case of Bhuvan Leasing and Infrastructures Vs ITO, ITAT Mumbai has held that where it is the intention of the assessee to lease out various premises and then sublet the same on leave and licence basis to different parties
In the case of En-Vision Enviro Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, it was held that deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be disallowed, merely on the ground that the assessee must be owner of the infrastructure facilities and the assess should be a developer and not contractor.
In the case of ACIT vs M/s.Goel Investments Ltd., ITAT Lucknow affirmed the earlier order of ITAT in a similar case of the same assessee that once provisions of section 14A of the IT Act are to be invoked, the disallowance is to be computed as per rule 8D of the IT rules.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that merely because prices of land has gone up, rent cannot be increased particularly to persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act without looking into agreement in respect of rent for the earlier years and for the present year
The assessee-company is a Civil Contractor as well as trading in sarees and fabrics. The assessee-company filed its return of income on 28-09-2008 declaring total income at Rs.3,07,285/-. As noted by AO, the assessee could not produce the books of account and supporting bills and vouchers.
he barrage of indiscriminate allegations include misuse of official position, corruption, insulting him and son: colluding with retired income tax officers to harm his client so on and so forth. The severity of accusations and fury emerging from their language is highly derogatory, defamatory and contemptuous, sent with a scheme and clear intention to intimidate judicial officers to desist from passing an unfavorable order.
The ITAT ,Delhi in the case of. ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma concluded that The limitation period of six months and not one year is applicable in case the penalty order is passed by the AO pursuant to confirmation of penalty by the tribunal
The tribunal in the verdict of Shailendra H. Bhatia vs. ITO concluded that Transfer of possession with the ownership rights confer beneficial ownership which is good enough to hold the asset as capital asset
