Once bogus purchases had gone into profit and loss account, and sales were not doubted, only option left with AO was to make addition of gross profit embedded in bogus purchases. Accordingly, AO was directed to restrict addition to the extent of 9.25% of impugned purchases as assessee had shown gross profit ratio of 9.25% in the year ending March, 2012.
Dhanesh Kumar Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case Assessee by mistake not claimed deduction u/s. 57(iv) of Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. @ 50% of interest on compensation that was received by Assessee on acquisition of his agricultural land by Land Collector. ITAT held that mistake, was in the nature of a mistake […]
Dr. B. Lal Clinical Laboratory Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) In the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, the ld D/R […]
Madhavi Raksha Sankalpa Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT noticed that the CIT(Exemptions) has passed the order on 31.08.2020 during the pandemic period without hearing the appellant. It is against the principles of natural justice. A proper and reasonable opportunity is liable to be given to the appellant in accordance with law, therefore, in the […]
Where the legality and validity of the agreement was under challenge, there was no infirmity into the order of CIT(A) to the extent it was held that the transfer of shares could not be subjected to capital gain tax in the year under consideration on the ground that the entire transaction had not fructified.
Unsecured loan– It is seen that merely because the Lender Company had substantial funds through borrowings, AO suspected the Assessee to have created layers of intermediaries to bring in Unaccounted money, and on the basis of such suspicion, drew adverse conclusion against the genuineness of the Unsecured Loan and treated it as Unexplained merely on the basis of such suspicion.
Interest on income tax refund received by the non-resident companies shall be taxable as per the provision of Tax Treaty irrespective of the fact that whether the assessee has PE in India or not.
Godha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, it is not the case of the AO that the provisions of sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to the impugned transaction. In fact, it is the submission of the assessee that the possession was never given to Shri […]
Mehta Air Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) t is matter of record that One Mr. Dhirajlal Terraiya vide letter dated 25.08.2015 in his reply to Show Cause Notice dated 18.08.2015, intimated the ITO Ward 2(1)(4) that the company was struck off from the records of Registrar of Companies (ROC), Gujrat, vide order dated […]
Since Indian subsidiary of assessee-company was operating in an independent manner and there was nothing to show that factually speaking the Indian subsidiary constituted a PE of assessee in India, therefore, AO had erred in invoking section 9 of the Act and/or Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA in order to say that the assessee company had a PE in India. Where assessee did not have a PE in India, income of assessee was not allowable to be taxed in India.
