M. D. Infra Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat) Facts- The assessee firm is in the real estate business. A search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was carried out on 17-07-2012 in the group cases of Dalia (Badshah) Babariya Group of Surat. The AO observed the modus operandi for purchase of said […]
We note that the term Cooperative Bank is specifically excluded in the first proviso to sub clause (a) of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO has rightly computed the deduction eligible U/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. We therefore uphold the order of the Ld. AO on this ground.
ACIT Vs Electrosteel Casting Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) It is clear from the rival contentions that determination price at which Power generated can be sold is subject to statutory control under the provisions of Section 61 & 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in its decision rendered in the case of […]
B.B. Verma Vs JCIT (ITAT Raipur) Facts- The assessee firm which is engaged in the business of a contractor had filed its original ROI for the AY 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, declaring an income of Rs.85,46,970/-. The ROI filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee […]
We are of the view that since the issue raised in the show-cause notice has already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in detail by conducting adequate enquiry calling for material evidence and other documents supporting the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act, proper application of mind and taken a plausible view in light of the settled judicial precedence as referred by the ld. counsel for the assessee, there remains no scope for the ld. PCIT to invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.
AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income.
DCIT Vs Agya Ram Manohar Lal (ITAT Chandigarh) Facts- The brief facts of the case for AY 2016- 17 are that the assessee firm derives income from business and income from other sources. The assessee firm belongs to M/s Roop Square Group of companies where a search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) was conducted on […]
The law is well settled that for exercising power u/s 263 twin conditions are required to be satisfied – (i) that the order should be erroneous and; and (ii) it should cause prejudice to the interests of Revenue. Moreover, it is not the case where the assessee failed to substantiate his claim, rather the explanation along with supporting evidences were placed before the assessing officer and the learned Pr.CIT.
Gourishankar Girdharilal Lohiya (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s order dated 17.02.2020 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)-1/199/2011-12 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. I straightway advert to the assessee’s […]
The CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payments towards electricity, water supply, security, lift maintenance etc., falling within the meaning of section 194C whereby these charges are paid for carrying out the work for maintenance of the common area that are available along with the lease premises.
