Umang Sitani Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) During the year, the assessee has received Rs.2.58 Cr. on account of compulsory acquisition of his land comprising an amount of Rs.79.17 lacs on account of compensation and Rs.178.92 lacs on account of interest on land compensation, the fact of which is not in dispute. The AO treated the […]
Coastal Fertilisers Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the cash sum of Rs. 94,50,000/- was deposited in the bank account held with Union Bank of India, account no. 495601010033544 on 16.11.2016. This date of deposit falls in post-demonetization period. On 08.11.2016 demonetization scheme was announced scrapping of currencies in the Rs. 1,000/& Rs. […]
C. Krishniah Chetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The grounds raised by the assessee, are only seeking set off of current year loss against income from house property and carry forward of loss to the future years amounting to Rs.76,26,766/-. The Ld.AR vehemently submitted that, the assessee incurred expenses in terms of […]
Hemera India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that once the revenue admitted that they were consultancy charges paid for introduction of client then that would fall in the definition of payments made to intermediary or liaison agents for channelizing, arranging or soliciting work order. There is no finding whatsoever that any inquiry […]
DCIT Vs Interjwel private limited (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee submitted that in a diamond business world over there are estimated 8000 – 10,000 different qualities of diamonds price of which depends on various factors and note to diamonds can have the same price as valuation also depends upon the perception of individual businessman. Assessee therefore […]
If the assessee did not adhere to the surrender made during the survey, it was for the AO to bring on record cogent material or other evidence to support the additions rather than rely on the statements simpliciter.
Assessee, being co-operative society, is out of the provisions of section 80P(4) and eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)
The expenditure incurred on Dombivali unit cannot be allocated to only EOU Toluja unit without any basis or sufficient material available on record.
The only issue remains for adjudication is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project undertaken and constructed by it despite the fact that nominal part is commercial area.
Assessee had purchased property in the name of married daughter, although she was divorced, but she was an independent for purpose of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, benefit of deduction under section 54 cannot be allowed, when property has been purchased in the name of married daughter
