State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee is a banking institution. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the hands of the assessee in order to verify compliance of TDS provisions. It was noticed that the assessee has provided LTC facility to its employees and some of the employees […]
The issue raised by the assessee that the HUF was not in existence when the assessment proceedings have been conducted and the Assessment Order has been passed on HUF and therefore, the entire proceedings are rendered null and void and it should be held that the Assessment Order is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The sole issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.5,01,00,000/- made by AO u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of bogus share capital including share premium
As per the circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 states that where the provisions of Section 172 are to apply, the provisions of Section 194C and 195 relating to tax deduction at source are not applicable.
TAT see no reason to uphold the levy of penalty in the present case U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the basis for levy of penalty, being cancellation of registration granted to the assessee U/s 12A of the Act and as a consequence treating its surplus and corpus donation as not exempt but taxable under the Act, has been quashed by the ITAT.
As regards to issue of allowability capital loss incurred by assessee on assigning of debts due from certain debtors, it was concluded that merely because assignee company did not disclose business income in their income tax returns for subsequent years in year of recovery of debts, that would not prejudice right of assessee company to claim capital loss in the year of extinguishment of their right in favour of assignee company. Hence, events that had happened after the date of assignment of debt, could not be used to judge the transaction, which had happened on the date of assignment.
Interest paid on the borrowing made for acquiring Capital Asset (House Property) is part of the cost of acquisition and therefore eligible for indexation and deduction from the Sale Consideration for computation of capital gains.
Addition made u/s 69 was liable to be quashed as the order passed by AO would be nullity as he couldn’t convert limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny in absence of requisite approval from the competent authority.
In the given case, the appeal is filed by revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The issue here is that as per assessing officer there is requirement for assesse to prove the source of funds in the hands of the receipts received by assessee.
Sri Vishnu Shankar Mill Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the 1962 Rules cannot be invoked for making disallowance u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act but disallowance of expenses incurred relatable to earning of an exempt income is to be computed in accordance with Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB of […]
