ITAT Pune held that disallowance of 1% is reasonable as admittedly the share transactions were manipulated through entry provider stockbrokers in order to obtain fraudulent income by rigging share prices and selling them in order to justify the unaccounted income of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment alleging that assessee has failed to provide fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment is bad in law as details already made available to AO during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings.
ITAT held that credit of bona fide assessee cannot be denied in case where assessee committed technical/typographical error during return filing.
Yum Restaurants India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The undisputable fact in this case is that while the lease rentals are paid based on a fixed percentage on the net revenue, the Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges are based on the per sq. ft. area. The observation of the ld. CIT(A) is that the […]
Interest income earned on fixed deposits (FDs) kept as security for performance guarantee is taxable as business income and can be set off against project expenses.
ITAT Chennai held that for the purpose of computing period of holding, date of allotment should be considered, but not the final sale deed executed for conveying the title and interest in the property.
Smt. Tajinder Pal Kaur Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) The assessee has challenged both the legal and factual grounds before the Bench. But during the appeal proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not challenged the legal grounds so there are first time challenging the issue before the ITAT. So, the entire legal ground was […]
Sh. Jagjit Singh S/o Inder Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Considering the order of the revenue authorities the assessee was not able to submit the confirmation from the sundry debtor, M/s AD Traders. The confirmation is annexed with the paper book of the assessee APB page no. 3. The assessee received SBN during demonetization period […]
ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposited on account of cash sales during demonetization period cannot be added as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as AO didn’t rejected the books of accounts nor brough anything contrary on records to show that cash sales is not the source for cash deposit.
ITAT Mumbai held that payment towards buy-back of shares to an NRI doesn’t attract deduction of tax under section 195 as according to Indo-Singapore DTAA jurisdiction for taxing the capital gains arising in the hands of an NRI is in Singapore and not in India
