ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Amar Singh. Deletion of Rs. 2,23,000 addition under Section 69A. CBDT Instruction applied for demonetization period cash deposits.
ITAT Gauhati held that provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot apply since the liability is still payable to sundry creditor and had not been written off in the books of account and there is no evidence to indicate that said liabilities had ceased to exist.
ACIT (Exemptions) Vs Grow More Foundation (ITAT Ahmedabad) Regarding the payment made to Chandansingh, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the payment is made for construction work on which TDS has been deducted and a fresh confirmation with signature of the contractor and his PAN No. etc. have been submitted and the amount is incurred […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of expenditure in the assessment year 2012 on the reason that company went into voluntary liquation is unsustainable as the company was not into liquidation in the impugned year.
ITAT Delhi held that expenses paid to legal and professionals for an opinion about legal and tax consequences of the prospective investment cannot be considered to be a capital expenditure. Such expenses are revenue in nature.
ITAT held that Corpus donations received by Trusts, which is not registered u/s.12A/12AA of Income Tax Act, are not taxable as they assume the nature of ‘Capital receipt’ the moment donations are given to ‘Corpus of Trust’
Larsen & Toubro Public Charitable Trust L&T House Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Rule 37BA(3)(ii) allows splitting up of TDS amount over a number of years if corresponding income is assessable over a number of years A.R submitted that certain income received by the assessee is split between two or more years under accounting principles. Accordingly, […]
Karam Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer made the addition alleging that the assessee did not furnish the required information to prove the loan transaction. However, it is observed, before the first appellate authority, the assessee produced additional evidences, such as, the bank statements of lenders, copy of Income Tax Return etc. to prove […]
In case of the assessee itself if we take the presumption that what the assessee has purchased from RSP is only scrap then he would be selling the same to some other steel manufacturing plant. However, the sales are retail sales. This itself shows that what has been sold by the assessee is not scrap but usable products.
The entire assessment was itself erroneous and bad in law due to non-service of notice to the relevant address of the assessee. The ld. Counsel had not pressed the factual aspect of the assessee. We considered only the legal issue. Accordingly, the assessment order itself is void and liable to be quashed.
