Ashoka Buildcon Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) It is observed that the assessee allegedly purchased raw materials through the Hawala purchase bills and thereafter consumed the same in the power project In such a situation, it cannot be said that the entire amount of hawala purchase bills requires addition. The Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in […]
Ashok Kumar Banthia Vs DCIT (ITAT Jodhpur) It is also an admitted fact that the affidavit filed by Shri Ashok Todi, which is at page No. 13 of the paper book who was director of M/s Lux Industries Ltd. had categorically admitted that on 19/04/2011, the assessee was carrying amount of Rs. 25.00 lacs in […]
ACIT Vs Dong Woo Surface Tech India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The parent company M/s. Dongwoo HST Co. Ltd renders supervisory services to the assessee by dispatching expatriates to India for carrying out work for which the assessee company has agreed to pay supervisory and managerial fees vide agreement dated 25.12.2007. The scope of […]
If a person adopts the provisions of section 44AD and declares income @ 8% of the turnover, then the assessee is not required to maintain the books of account as provided for under section 44AA in respect of business covered under the presumptive taxation scheme of section 44AD.
ITO Vs Rachna Arora (ITAT Chandigarh) Solitary issue in the present appeal pertained to claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act of Long Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee being invested in another property. The shares of three co-owners namely the assessee, her son in law and her daughter in the purchased property […]
Spytech Buildcon Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) As per sub-section (3) and (4) of section 43CA, the benefit of prior agreement is granted if the consideration is received at the time of agreement other than cash. In the case in hand, the booking is claimed to have been made prior to 01/04/2013 whereas the sale deeds […]
Shri Rajesh Chunara Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) On perusal of the AIR information, it is noted that the information talks about the assessee and another person by name of Ashok K Chanara, name of the bank which has issued the credit card, the transaction amount of Rs 3,82,079/- and date of transaction i.e, 31.03.2008. The […]
Since the jurisdiction of PCIT(E) was being limited to verification of two issues, one with regard to the ‘lease hold land’ and the second about the fee concession and on both accounts, CIT (E) had not drawn any adverse inference and, therefore, the order of CIT(E) denying the registration u/s 12AA was bad in law.
PCIT was not justified in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 when the case of assessee which was selected for limited scrutiny was never converted to full scrutiny and assessee had submitted all the details as called for by AO from time to time for the reasons for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny.
Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Mackinnon Mackenzie Building Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Concluion: In present facts of the case, while allowing the appeal, it was held that the activities of Assessee comes under “charitable purpose” as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act and is eligible for exemption, because the amounts received by the assessee […]
