Frick India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee had made a claim of depreciation of Rs 60% on UPS but the AO restricted the claim of depreciation @ 15% only on the UPS and disallowed the excess 45% namely, Rs.50,320/-. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that it is settled proposition of law […]
ACIT Vs Keyur Hemant Shah (ITAT Mumbai) Upon perusal, the undisputed facts that emerges are that the assessee has acquired the rights in a duplex flat on 1 2th & 1 3th floor front facing the road admeasuring 1961.75 Square Feets & terrace measuring 881.5 Square Feets as per the attached layout plan along with […]
The Income-tax Act does not authorize levy of tax on the same amount of income more than once. A particular amount of income can be assessed only for once for a particular assessment year.
Agarwal Packers & Movers Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Merely because if a claim is rejected by Assessing Officer, would not ipso facto made the assessee liable for penalty Now, coming to the penalty confirmed in respect of addition sustained on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation. One of the averments of the assessee […]
Tejas Karshanbhai Dari Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) IYTAT held that Ld. CIT(A) has not approached the matter judiciously and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by rejecting the application for condonation of delay, without assigning any specific reasons why the delay in filing appeal should not be condoned. There is no allegation to the […]
ITAT Chandigarh allows delay in PF payment. Assessee’s Rs. 4,62,844 paid before return filing. Amendments by Finance Act 2021 are prospective, not retrospective.
ITAT held that interest expenditure incurred on loans taken for investment in acquiring controlled interest in a Company which was in the same line of business as that of the Respondent would be allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Nagpur) A plain reading of Section 263 makes it clear that, the precondition to exercise revisionary jurisdiction by the PCIT/CIT suo moto under it, is that the order of AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is concern. Consequently, […]
Only in a very gross case of inadequacy in inquiry or where inquiry was per se mandated on the basis of record available before AO and such inquiry was not conducted, the revisional power so conferred could be exercised to invalidate the action of AO.
In our considered view the presumption cannot be real adjudication of an issue. The very purpose of income tax proceedings is to correctly assess the tax liability of an Assessee in accordance with law but not under presumption as held in this case.
