Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Set top boxes was the property of CISCO which was taken by assessee on lease from CISCO against payment of lease charges thus assessee was not entitled to claim the principal component of alleged lease rent paid as ‘revenue expenditure’ u/s 37(1) however, entitled to claim […]
ITAT Mumbai rules compensation for reduced partnership share is not capital gains. Anik Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT case. Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13.
Assessing Officer tinkered the book profit by adding the additional revenue on account of subsequent realization of export, while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee has revised the return of income by including the additional revenue in its total income.
ITO Vs P.N. Krishnamurthy (ITAT Bangalore) According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having […]
Payments made by assessee towards toll-free telephone charges is royalty, in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, and is liable to deduct TDS under section 194J of the Act. We therefore are in agreement with the view taken by Ld.CIT (A).
Satern Griha Nirman Pvt. Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Facts of the Case: The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of Builders and Property Developers. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 17.09.2011 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. During the […]
When it was presumed that investment in hundi was bogus in such a situation there was no money available for the investment made by the assessee as such amount surrendered was not available, therefore, this proved that donation was made out of business receipts, which was an allowable expenditure.
AO cannot reject suo-moto disallowance made by assessee under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without recording his satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The issue under consideration is that whether deduction u/s 80-IC will be allowed against service charges since services rendered were part of business and also involved manufacturing activity?
Hence, the order of Assessing Officer was upheld to the extent that the payment of non-compete fee was a capital expenditure and the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act on the said capital expenditure.
