In absence of any findings in assessment order regarding underreporting or misreporting of income, PCIT cannot revise assessment order to initiate penalty proceedings.
Held that consideration paid by the assessee in excess of its value of tangible assets was rightly classified as goodwill the same is eligible for depreciation
Pratibha Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that in case of parallel proceedings under Income-tax Act, 1961 and IBC, 2016, the IBC has an overriding effect over the provisions of the Income-tax Act which has been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd in […]
Shri. Vardhan Vishwanath Vijaya Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In so far as the credit for taxes paid in US is concerned, one of the requirements is that the assessee has to file Form 67 which was filed before the AO only after the date of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Filing of Form […]
DCIT Vs Egberts India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) From the facts, it emerges that the property at Anna Nagar has been let out by the assessee and the rental income has been offered and assessed as Income from House Property. Under this head, the assessee is entitled to claim statutory deduction of 30% and interest […]
Mahadevan HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the individual Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan had purchased the land at Plot No.94, ARN Nagar, Korattur by way of sale deed dated 14.07.1994 and land at Plot No.II, VGN Avenue, Sennerkuppam Village by way of sale deed dated 03.08.1995. Shri R. Mahadevan had purchased the land at […]
ITAT held that that section 80A(5) of the Act is applicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under Chapter VI A of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a case where no return of income is filed.
Lease charges paid for the use of the asset, without acquiring any ownership rights in the same, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act.
Assessee did not submitted necessary details before AO. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on this score without calling for the remand report. Tribunal set-aside the impugned order.
A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the provisions of section 145 (3) have not been invoked and the books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. This being so, admittedly, estimation of the assessee’s income is not permissible.
