ITAT held that provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of are applicable only in cases where purchased share become property in the hands of buyer company and, if shares are of any other company.
If purpose of incentive or subsidy was to enable assessee to set up a new unit or to expand existing unit then receipt of subsidy was of capital in nature.
Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT find that in the return of income the assessee claimed refund of TDS reflected in his Form-26AS. The CPC denied such refund in its intimation dated 08.10.2018. The assessee filed application for rectification under section 154. In the application under section 154, the assessee claimed such refund […]
When assessee entertained bona-fide belief that its account were not subject to audit u/s 44AB, it would certainly constitute reasonable cause for not obtaining the audit report and, therefore, question of imposing of penalty u/s 271B does not arise.
ITAT Delhi held that as common area maintenance charges are not forming part of the actual rent paid to the owner by the assessee, TDS on the same is deductible under section 194C @2% and not under section 194.
Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) Phraseology in section 50C(1) of the Act only covers exclusively land or building or both and does not refer to any right in land or building. Thus, the expression land or building in its coverage is quite distinct from the expression any right in land or building. […]
DCIT Vs Allsec Technologies Ltd (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that the assessee cannot be expected to deduct TDS on payment made to non-residents on the basis of subsequent amendment to the law with retrospective effect from earlier date, because the assessee cannot foresee the amendment and deduct TDS and hence, we are of the considered […]
HUF is owner of the said agricultural land though it is registered in the name of the coparcener, as the HUF is enjoying all the benefits of the said agricultural land.
Rohan Hattangadi Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Mumbai) From Rule 128, it is evident that the assessee has to file Form 67 on or before the due date of furnishing the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act, which the statement specifies as mandatory and not directory as per the word ‘shall’ used […]
Miracle Cars India Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The undisputed facts are that the agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., dated 30.06.2010 did not materialize and consequently, the dealership of Skoda cars sales & services has not been transferred to the assessee. Further, the rent agreement in respect of premises where […]
