Smt. Bachupally Laxmi (alias Routhu Laxmi) Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) For the purpose of computation of LTCG arising out of the development agreement cum GPA, the Assessing Officer has accepted that the assessee has acquired the flats as on 9.11.2009 and therefore, in the year 2012 when the assessee has sold the flat, the holding […]
Goldman Sachs (India) Finance Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered opinion that in this regard if the assessee is not called upon to pay any tax on book profit as taxes on normal computation are higher even after the aforesaid exercise of increase of the book profit by the amount […]
International Air Transport Association (Canada) Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) At this stage, we may herein observe that as in the present case before us, in the case of Delmas France (supra) also there was no finding of the lower authorities that the transactions between the principal and agent were done in arm’s length conditions. Under […]
ACIT Vs Yashovardhan Tyagi (ITAT Delhi) he issue in the present ground is with respect to the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act. AO made the addition u/s 69A of the Act and treated the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from M/s. Eagle Home Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. to be as not recorded in the […]
Manav Mangal Society Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Since the specified persons possessed the requisite qualifications and rendered the services, therefore, it cannot be held that payment of salary to the specified persons was unreasonable particularly when no comparable case was cited by AO. Therefore, the exemption could not be denied under section 13(1)(c). Held: […]
Notice issued by AO was bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and merely because AO had treated the business loss claimed by assessee as speculation loss, the same could not tantamount to concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The allegation of AO that the opening stock of assessee was an unexplained income of the assessee as such stock in trade was not in existence seem to be unsustainable because why a person would show and on accounted opening stock of the magnitude of ₹ 51,000,000 just to on a meager net profit of ₹ 875,000/–.
Payments were made to various state government departments for delay in submission of form or document or compliance with the procedures, in which case, the payment was not for violation of law but compensation for not complying with law and was allowable expenditure as normal business expenditure u/s 37(1).
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) With respect to the TP adjustment to the export commission, which is claimed by the assessee that it is intrinsically, looked that the main activity of manufacturing and sale of products and as such could not be identified separately for benchmarking. It is also […]
Shree Lakadipool Vitthal Mandir Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Pune) In the present case, the objects of the trust are not doubted by the Department and they have also not disputed the charitable nature of the activities conducted by the assessee trust. Meaning thereby, all the relevant records were submitted before the Ld. CIT(Exemption) and he […]
