New Modern Bazaar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The conditions of the allowability of expenditure is laid down u/s 37 (1) of the income tax act which speaks that any expenditure which is not a capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee which is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of […]
RBJ Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when the corresponding additions made by the AO have already been deleted by ITAT vide its aforesaid order dated 22.12.2020 when the aforesaid quantum addition […]
Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee has further assailed the disallowance worked out by the A.O under Sec. 1 4A r.w Rule 8D, on the ground that there was no recording of an objective satisfaction by the A.O that the suo-motto disallowance offered by the assessee under Sec. 14A was not correct. […]
Additions to income–Addition towards sale proceeds of the agricultural produce–Assessee produced all the documentary evidences towards ownership of land and towards carrying on agricultural activities
Assessment order passed u/s. 158BC r.w.s 143(3) / 254 dated 31.12.2019 determining the undisclosed income of about Rs. 57.43 crores against Mr.D was barred by limitation as per provisions of section 153(2A) and liable to be quashed as AO ought to have passed assessment order on 14.04.2019 whereas the impugned order was passed on 31.12.2019.
No addition can be made to the income of the assessee in this asst. years, as in the view of the AO the outstanding liability in question is bogus and non-existent. The question of cessation of such non-existent as bogus liability does not arise. Hence, Sec. 41(1) cannot be applied. Only when there is a genuine liability and there is cessation of such liability or it is written off in the books of account, then Sec. 41(1) of the Act can be applied.
ITO Vs Richmond Vivek Laboratories P Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad) Learned CIT (DR) vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned misc. expenditure disallowance of Rs.1,92,38,312/- despite the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the same by way of filing […]
Shri Subbaraya Annamalai Siva Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderbad) Ld.DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the Pr. CIT’s impugned order has nowhere held the assessment in question dated 06.01.2015 as an erroneous one so far as it causes prejudice to the interest of Revenue as per Sec.263 of the Act. Ld.Pr.CIT has rather […]
Therefore, reasons are to be examined only on the basis of reasons as recorded. Here, in this case, I note that the A.O on mistaken facts resorted to reopening which is an admitted fact on a perusal of re-assessment order (supra). Therefore, the condition precedent for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is found to be absent and, therefore, the reopening itself is bad in law and therefore, the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act is quashed and therefore, the consequent action of making addition of Rs.9,80,494/- is null in the eyes of law.
The provisions of the DTAA cannot be thrusted upon the Assessee simply because the Assessee is a tax resident of a country with which India has entered into a tax treaty or on account of the mere perception of the AO that the Assessee may claim benefits under the tax treaty in subsequent years. 2. Short term losses should be eligible to be carried forward.
