Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs CPC (ITAT Delhi) 1. ITAT Delhi deletes addition made u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of contributions received from employees on account of ESI / EPF deposited beyond time specified in respective law but before the due date u/s 139(1). […]
Smt. Rontala Tirumala Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT finds that the statement of the M.D Shri Rontala Raji Reddy was recorded on 17.10.2014 i.e. a day after the survey on 16.10.2014 and the diaries impounded during the course of survey allegedly corroborated the statement. It is a settled position that no addition can be made […]
ITO Vs Ayesha Abid Ali (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition in the hands of the assessee of interest income from an A/c with HSBC held by the assessee jointly with her husband which was opened by his employer to deposit his salary income. Therefore, it is not an […]
ACIT Vs V.V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad) On perusal of the statement, AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of Rs. 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in […]
ACIT Vs. V. V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad) AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of ₹ 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in his wife’s name for […]
Sukhdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As regards the contention of notice not properly served by the Assessing Officer, the explanation of the postal authorities is that the assessee has refused to take notice is a good service and hence ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. As regards ground Nos. 8 to 13, the […]
Morgan Stanley Mauritius Co Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The reasoning given by the DRP is ex facie incorrect inasmuch as the SCB-India, being a permanent establishment of a company fiscally domiciled in the United Kingdom, and is not a taxable unit in India, and the taxability is in the name of its general enterprise- […]
The property was conveyed to assessee after the death of his father in 1955, i.e. before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1950. Accordingly, the property belonged to HUF of assessee and not to assessee-individual. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 147 for difference in sale consideration and fair market value of property itself was liable to be quashed.
Merely because assessee had not disclosed mode of payment of salary i.e. either by cheque or cash, the same should not doubted especially when such salary to security guards came to Rs.27,000/- per month for four persons. Even, if the payment was made in cash, there would be no violation of section 40A(3).
Manoj Singhal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On going through the details, we find that the deduction claimed u/s 54F was Rs.6,12,10,100/- whereas the deduction eligible was Rs.6,11,19,500/-. Thus, there is a computational difference of Rs.90,600/- in the claim of deduction u/s 54F which could have been rectified u/s. 154. The provisions of section 263 need […]
