Satish Kumar Garg Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) ITAT held that misplacing of CIT(A) order by regular tax consultant is not deliberated delay on part of assessee and it should be condoned. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 31 days. In this regard, the ld. […]
M/s. Kalya Awas Vikas (P). Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Commercial expediency must be decided from businessman’s point of view — Even expenditure incurred voluntarily on the ground of commercial expediency and in order indirectly to facilitate the carrying on of the business would be deductible under this section. The question whether it was necessary […]
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(exemption) is correct in rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s 10(23C) who is mainly engaged in education facilities?
Merely because the issue was not elaborately discussed in the quantum assessment could not be a ground to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 particularly when the details called for by AO were submitted and placed on record.
Tata Sky Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee made year-end provisions in respect of sale promotion, legal and professional fees, interest and programming costs. Further, these provisions were debited to the profit and loss account and not added back to the computation of total income by the assessee. Once, the assessee has claimed these expenses […]
DCIT Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) When the assessee had came forth with the full disclosure of all the particulars in respect of its aforesaid claim of expense, which as observed by us hereinabove had not been proved to be incorrect by the lower authorities, therefore, merely for the reason that […]
DCIT Vs. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) The question before the special bench was whether the provisions of section 206AA had overriding effect for all other provisions of the Act, whether the assesse has to deduct tax at source at the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case the payees are unable to furnish their […]
Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We note that the assessee has issued shares at a premium. In order to ascertain the market value of the shares, the assessee adopted DCF method, as prescribed under Rule 11UA r.w.s 56(2) of the Act and accordingly, the shares were issued at a premium. According to […]
Sri Sandeep Patil Vs. ITO (ITAT Banglore) ITAT held that difference between the value adopted by stamp valuation authority and actual consideration is to be ignored if the same is less than 10%. We also notice that the Parliament has introduced third proviso in section 50C(1) of the Act, as per which the difference in […]
Addition made merely and solely on the basis of search statement recorded under section 132(4) without any corroborative evidence was not sustainable in law, moreover when confession made was subsequently retracted.
