Raman Sood Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) On being seen ledger account of the seller of the goods in the relevant Financial year it is noted that there are no credits appearing in the said ledger as being no purchases from the said seller. No purchases made from the seller during the AYr. Under consideration. Evidentiary value […]
Kuber Products P Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Statement of 3rd party could not have been used for making an addition in the hands of the assessee in case of search U/S 153A in absence of any corroborative material Delhi High court recent celebrated decision in case of Anand Kumar Jain HUF followed and held […]
Penalty proceedings under section 271D or 271E were independent proceedings and had nothing to do with assessment proceedings or its outcome. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the assessment proceedings, during the course of which, penalty u/s.271D and 271E were initiated had been held to be invalid.
K. Ramesh Reddy Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case on 30.11.2006, when the assessment was made, the HUF was not in existence. In such a case, the procedure prescribed under Section 171 will have no application as the assessee was not hitherto assessed as HUF and so, the fiction created under that section to […]
Sacmi Engineering India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) main issue for our consideration is that whether the expenditure on conversion of debenture bond into equity share capital is revenue or capital expenditure. The claim of the assessee is that since capital base has been increased due to conversion of debenture for meeting working capital […]
Where AO made addition under section 68 in respect of a loan received by assessee, however, it was found that the said loan was not received during the assessment year under consideration; the addition made under section 68 on account of such loan was not called for during the said assessment year and hence, the said addition was liable to be deleted.
Increase in brand value due to use of foreign AEs brand name in Taxpayer’s products cannot be considered as provision of services, as per international transaction definition u/s 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
HUF is owner of the said agricultural land though it is registered in the name of the Coparcener, as the HUF is enjoying all the fruits of the said agricultural land. Thus, the HUF is entitled to claim exemption/deduction under section 54B of the Act.
Infosys BPM Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Order of assessment framed in the name of a non nonexistent entity after it ceased to be a subsisting entity, was ab-initio initio void and therefore, null in the eyes of law. On similar facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the ITAT, Bangalore bench in […]
Joseph Mudaliar Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on difference in value in respect of the subject properties where declared sale consideration shown by the assessee is lesser than the stamp duty value (market value) determined by the stamp duty authority Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b). The difference in value in respect of the subject properties […]
