Addition under section 68 on account of high premium was unjustified as there was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of AO once assessee had furnished all the relevant material.
The question that arises for consideration is where there is no new material brought on record by the Assessing subsequent to completion of original proceedings u/s 143(3) and where the matter was duly examined during the original assessment proceedings, whether the Assessing officer can still acquire jurisdiction by exercising powers u/s 147 of the Act.
Aricent Technologies Holdings Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Credit for tax deducted at source, which was deducted from the account of the deductee, by the deductor, was to be allowed as taxes paid in the hands of the deductee, irrespective of the fact whether the same had been deposited by the deductor to the […]
Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that the twin conditions are to be satisfied cumulatively by the ld CIT before invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act viz (i) order of the AO should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejuducial to the interests of the revenue
Deduction under section 24(b) and computation of capital gains under section 48 of the Act are altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from ‘house property’ and ‘capital gains’. Further, a perusal of both the provisions makes it unambiguous that none of them excludes operative of the other.
Provision for post-retirement medical benefit of employees had been created on the basis of actuarial calculation on a scientific basis and liability was not contingent but definite, accordingly, no disallowance could be made.
Hemant M Mehta HUF Vs A.C.I.T. (ITAT Mumbai) In case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition is required to be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases. Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court […]
Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that there is no dispute that the assessee company had acquired the shares of a foreign company from its directors. We also find the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act refers to transaction of acquisition of any property being shares of a company not […]
AO had duly adjudicated the same on merits in the assessment order itself and hence there is no question of said claim of assessee getting rejected for not claiming the same by way of a valid return.
Though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-operative societies, therefore, the interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act.
