Standard Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of expenditure incurred towards the architect fees of ₹33,67,200/- while computing capital gain on transfer of development right. The Assessing Officer was of the view that architect fees cannot be considered as incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer as […]
Global Associates Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, undisputed fact is that the assessee was not earlier assessed to tax for assessment year 2005-06 and hence no assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act is available. In that situation, the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act is applicable to the facts of […]
ITAT unable to understand as to how the contraventions, if any, of the notification issued by RBI would attract the provisions of sec. 68 of the Income tax Act.
The assessee filed its return of income on 15.10.2019 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act whereby an adjustment was made on account of disallowance of claim of deduction with respect to employees’ contribution towards PF and ESIC deposited belatedly.
Ld. CIT(A) is required to apply her mind to all issues which arise from impugned order before her whether or not same had been raised by appellant before her; and further, that CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits.
Ranjana Aggarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) When the original assessment is completed u/s 143(3) and the reassessment proceedings have been initiated after a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all […]
Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust Vs Centralised Processing Centre (ITAT Mumbai) CIT(A), though admitted that assessee is not registered under section 12A of the Act and thus no benefit of exemption could be allowed to the assessee under section 11 of the Act, rejected the contention of the assessee that irrespective of status of registration […]
Once it is held that there is no error in the order of ld. AO, the ld. PCIT would be precluded from assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as one of the twin conditions mandated in section 263 is not satisfied.
It is apparent from bare reading of section 54F that the exemption becomes available towards capital gain arising from the transfer of any long term capital asset on purchasing or constructing one residential house in India. Thus, it is patent that in order to qualify for exemption u/s.54F, it is necessary that the new asset must be a ‘residential house’.
ACIT Vs Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The issue in dispute in these both appeal is whether the transponder charges paid by the assessee to three entities listed above is in the nature of the ‘royalty’ and liable for withholding tax. In respect of the three above listed entities, the Tribunal (supra) has […]
