Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 309) has held that whether a benefit of deduction is available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions and under the provision of Act, then without withdrawing […]
Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We notice that there was difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO in respect of extent of land that is assessable to wealth tax. While the case of revenue is that entire vacant land admeasuring 2,54,020.58 sq.ft is assessable to wealth tax, the case […]
Where main object or purpose of assessee s charitable trust was promotion of sports and swimming, merely because trust collected certain charges from coaching campus, same could not alter its character of being charitable.
Biocon Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Present Miscellaneous Petitions are filed by assessee seeking rectification of typographic mistakes in order dated 14.06.2021 passed by this Tribunal in the above referred appeals. We have perused the order passed by this Tribunal viz-a-viz the submissions advanced by both sides and the records placed before us. We note […]
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for assessee contended that AO has wrongly made addition of the cash deposit in the bank account u/s 69 of the Act. We do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee because assessee made a cash deposit of the impugned amount […]
DCIT Vs Aarti Catalyst Solutions P. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the present case on hand, the assessee has discharged his onus by providing details relating to the loan amount availed from the three creditors by producing their bank accounts, Income-Tax Returns, confirmation letters, etc. The AO has doubted source of the creditors thereby the AO […]
It is amply clear that the additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act can be made provided the transaction takes place during the previous year / financial year. Further, for making addition under section 68 of the Act, the assessee must fail to offer explanation and for making addition under section 69C of the Act, the source of the expenditure must remain unproved. In the present case, the assessee had duly explained the sources of the credit and the expenditure, respectively.
We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that the interest levied u/s 234B of the Act was deleted by the DRP relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of GE Packaged Power 373 ITR 65 in which the Hon’ble High Court followed the decision in the case of Agence France Press 2015-TII-14-HC-DEL-Intl. From the scrutiny report, on DRP’s directions, the AO has accepted the deletion. But since the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, these appeals have been preferred.
We find that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are applicable only for consideration for issue of shares received by a company from any person who is a resident. Admittedly, the monies have been received in the instant case by the assessee company from a non-resident. Hence the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are also not applicable in the instant case.
Neogenetics Foods Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) From the perusal of the final Assessment Order (paragraph 4.5) it is clear that the only reason given by the AO for not accepting the genuineness of the transaction with M/s. Manoj Traders and M/s. K. S. Enterprises is failure of the assessee to furnish copy of […]
