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.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in confirming the addition while treating the compensation received for relinquishment of right to sue as taxable business income & accordingly considered it as revenue receipt as against the capital receipt?
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessement u/s 147 is justified in law?
NKC Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It could be seen from the assessment order that while dealing with the issue of allowability of the bank guarantee commission, learned Assessing Officer held that on identical facts in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 an addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was […]
Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The only dispute in the instant appeal is regarding the treatment of the loss on account of forfeiture of share application money amounting to Rs. 41,61,000/- as business loss or capital loss. While the loss is not in dispute, according to the assessee it is a business […]
Assessee is entitled to include interest in the capital cost while computing capital gains U/s 48 of the Act. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the order of a co‑ordinate bench.
