Held that based on materiality concept, the amount of provision made, can’t be termed as unascertained liability, as the % for which provision is being made had been derived based on technical study, past experience of the company and the industrial standards.
Provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable as the assessee was not a registered shareholder of the company
Search was initiated against the assessee. However, notice was not issued u/s 143(2). AO reopened the matter and issued notice u/s 148. Held, reassessment of proceedings u/s 148, without issuance of notice u/s 143(2), is unsustainable in law
Kailas Chand Agrawal Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) Our careful consideration of assessment records and the records of appellate proceedings it transpired that, neither of the lower tax authorities had pointed any such voucher, the genuineness of the expenditure therein claimed to have been incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its […]
NFAC has erred in not granting an opportunity to the appellant bank to present the case through the video conferencing as specified under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2020
Penta Media Graphics Ltd Vs DCIT/ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) justified if assessee failed to deduct TDS on payment for software development consultancy charges to foreign companies. Conclusion: Since assessee had not deducted TDS under section 195 on payment for software development consultancy charges was made to foreign companies and failed to file any […]
Assessee consistently deposited sale proceeds realized by way of cash, such deposit is in accordance with law, addition deleted
Form no. 10CCB clearly states that the undertaking is partly owned. Sale proceeds are also deposited equally in individual account. Deduction u/s 80IB(10) allowed
Held that the development fees received from students for acquisition of Fixed Assets and utilized for acquisition of Capital Assets, taken directly to corpus fund, is allowed as capital receipt
Even though the agricultural land was converted for non-agricultural purposes, but cultivation of land continued till the date of sale of the land. Thus, the land should have been treated as agricultural land and exempt from capital gain in view of section 2(14).
