ACIT Vs Feroke Boards Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) The first issue to be decided is whether the assets transferred by the assessee to M/s.Masonite Holdings Private Limited is a “financial asset” coming within the Explanation 1(i)(e) to section 2(42A) of the I.T.Act. The term “financial asset” has been described in Explanation 1(i)(d) to section 2(42A) of […]
India Meditronic (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Non-compete fee was allowable as capital expenditure and depreciation could be claimed on the same.
Parmanand Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT said in their considered opinion once the assessee alleged that his income is not taxable during the provisions of the Act there cannot be any obligation upon the assessee to pay advance tax. ITAT’s view is fortified by the affidavit of the assessee filed before me. I find […]
Depreciation could not be disallowed due to assets were not in use as assessee had not close down the business but it was not going on because of illegal strike by the workers and therefore manufacturing had been stopped temporarily.
Property tax levied by the Municipal Authority is a charge on the property. Undisputedly, the licensor is the owner of the property, hence, liable to pay the property tax. That being the case, the amount equivalent to the property tax reimbursed to the licensor cannot be treated as rate, tax, fee, cess, etc., as provided under section 43B(a) of the Act.
Where there were two funds one which was already taxed and other had not and there were remittances during the accounting year for a certain sum, the source of which was not indicated then the presumption was that the remittances should have been from the fund which had already suffered tax. Thus, assessee was entitled to the telescoping benefit of the income surrendered during the year to the cash deposited in the bank account as the surrendered income which was invested in hundis were received back in cash and were duly accounted in the books of accounts.
Inordinate delay in filing of MAs is not a fit case for condonation, more so, because there is no specific provision in the realm of section 254(2) of the Act to provide for such condonation of delay in case of MAs.
Modern Malleables Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Addition made u/s. 68 only on the basis of two statements which could not stand the scrutiny of law, was not justified and therefore, the addition could not be sustained as per law. Held: AO got information from the Investigation Wing pursuant to search operation conducted at […]
In our considered view therefore, although the name of the assessee does not feature in the panchnama, in view of the fact that warrant of authorization executed by the Department contained its name, the proceedings u/s 153A were validly initiated against the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether sale of agricultural land after conversion taxing under capital gain or under business income? ITAT direct the A.O. to treat the property on sale of land as capital gains and given the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee U/s 54F of the Act.
