ITAT do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. Accordingly we hold that assessee trust is not eligible for standard deduction at the rate of 30% u/s 24 (a) of the act, out of the rental income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee.
The issue raised by the assessee challenging the action of AO in holding the income from providing IT support services as taxable for fees for technical services.
The issue under consideration is whether the exemption u/s 54 can be denied only with the reason that the new property has been purchased in the name of son and not in the name of that assessee.
Therefore, according to the Finance Act, 2015, prior to 01.06.2015, your good self had no authority to levy fee, if any, under Section 234E of the Act and thus levy of fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing the statement is beyond the scope of Section 200A of the Act.
Parle Hindu Devalaya Mandal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The dispute in the present appeal is confined to denial of assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a charitable trust and has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act. For the assessment year under dispute, […]
Since there was no material available before AO that assessee had paid anything more than what was mentioned in the sale deed, therefore, no addition was warranted in the instant case by invoking the provisions of section 69.
Addition by AO under section 41(1) as liability of ‘Trade Payables’ written off was not justified as the balance-sheets filed by assessee were neither signed by the Auditor nor by the Director and, therefore, the same were not reliable and assessee had failed to produce any confirmation to the effect that the assessee received payment from M/s. O as interest free unsecured loan.
Service of notice upon a dead person under section 142(1) would not authorise him to assume jurisdiction to pass assessment order on the L/Rs. also.
Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of 2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on wrong footing that the same would be personal expenditure and hence, disallowable completely overlooking the fact that the said expenditure has never been claimed by the assessee anywhere while computing […]
HLG Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there has been an escapement of income […]
