HP Ex Servicemen Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Issue– Ld. CIT(A) not granted the credit of TDS of Rs. 1,90,76,546/- (duly reflected in Form no. 26AS) by stating that the assessee had not offered the freight receipts as income for the relevant year under consideration ignoring the fact that the assessee had shown the net […]
The assessee was required to prove identity of creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditors. The assessee grossly failed to do so. Therefore, in the absence of the supporting evidences regarding claim of unsecured loans, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of authorities below.
ITO Vs Laxmipat Surana (ITAT Kolkata) The revenue’s grievance is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 43B of the Act for unpaid bank interest on secured loans of Rs. 3,55,54,116/-. We find that so far as amount of bank interest payable on the secured loans is concerned, there is no […]
Total estimated construction cost the percentage of the completion works out to 24.89% which is less than the 25%, being the limit prescribed for recognition of Revenue.
Additions under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, without bringing anything on record to suggest that interest-bearing funds were actually utilised for the purpose of advancing funds on which no interest was charged by the assessee, is unsustainable in law.
AO failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under section 50C(2), held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in adopting deemed sale consideration in violation of section 50C(2) of the Act. Actual sale consideration adopted for LTCG
Purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions to create bogus capital short term capital loss in the garb of real transactions with the sole motive to claim short term capital loss so as to evade tax. Hence the same was not allowable under section 28.
Assessee submitted medical certificate justifying delay. Accordingly held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee.
It is normal presumption that, if the deposits have been made from the cash balance available in the books of accounts, then the sources of the cash would stand explained and hence, there is no necessity to treat it as unexplained deposits warranting addition.
DCIT Vs Tirupati Udyog Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It is the case of the assessee that Section 68 applies only to the credit/ receipts entered in the books during the Financial Year in question and its operation is not extended to other assessment years. This position is fortified by plethora of judicial precedents including CIT vs. […]
