Vidya Bharati Society for Education & Scientific Advancement Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Merely because the contributions from students were collected under the nomenclature of development fee cannot ipso facto lead to conclusion that it cannot be considered to be corpus contribution. It is true that in terms of section 12(1) read with section 11(1)(d) of […]
Clause (h) of Rule 2A specifically provides that ‘salary’ includes dearness allowance, if the terms of employment so provede, but excludes all other allowances and perquisites. Accordingly, the performance bonus received by the appellant did not form part of ‘salary’ for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act.
Shri Rajasugumar Subramani Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Provision in section 54F comes w.e.f. 01.04.2015 according to which it was clarified that the residential house is to be acquired only in India meaning thereby before this amendment it was not clear as to whether the benefit of section 54F can be given to residential house acquired […]
The onetime payment of the annual rent as per the lease deed is rightly claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was not right in holding that the payment during the year relates to land which is capital in nature.
Technopolis Premises Co-operative Society Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered view that though the co-operative bank pursuant to the insertion of sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, however, as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative […]
DCIT Vs Shri Ravjibhai Manibhai Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) If an agriculture land is situated beyond 8 kms. from the local limit of any municipal or cantonment area, whose population is more than Rs.10 lakhs, then that would not fall within the ambit of definition ‘capital assets. This demarcation of the geographical situation of the land […]
Since both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by assessee thus, assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and addition made by AO u/s 68 was based on conjectures and surmises which could not be justified.
Both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
ACIT Vs Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) it is beyond doubt that the relevant capital asset in the form of the building of the assessee corresponding to the expenditure not incurred actually by those two contractors mentioned above, did not come into existence and thus the assessee cannot be entitled for depreciation […]
The assessee cannot escape himself for non-filing quarterly TDS merely stating that the PAN of the employees are not available. The penalty is provided in the Income Tax provisions u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act is mandatory in nature except in case of reasonable cause proved by the assessee, which is lack in this case.
