M/s. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the assessee has offered Explanation as why the transaction of loss of security was claimed as business loss. This Explanation has not found to be false by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee substantiated the Explanation by way of filing relevant […]
Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from the benefit under Section 54F.
Shri Vijay Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the Assessing Officer while making the impugned additions has exceeded his jurisdiction. That the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny issue i.e. regarding security transaction. The Assessing Officer could not find any reason […]
JCIT (OSD) Vs Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the relevant material available on record. The Market Linked Focus Product Scheme is a scheme promoted by the Director General of Foreign Trade wherein incentive @ 2% on the FOB value of […]
Magic Share Traders Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether a company dealing in ‘derivatives’ could be considered as engaged in speculative business as per Section 73 or not? In the present case, the assessee seeks set off of losses arising from derivative losses as non-speculative business losses. The Revenue had […]
DCIT Vs M/s Delhi Tourism Transportation Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The addition was made by the AO on the ground that although the assessee had claimed credit for Tax Deducted at Source (“TDS”, for short) on the interest income from the bank, corresponding interest income was not offered to tax by the assessee during the […]
Since assessee had explained that the two partners had cash deposited out of the cash receipts against advanced sale of land in individual however, assessee could not furnish any details evidence of holding of land, agreement with the purchasers and date/mode of source of receipts either before AO or before CIT(A), therefore, AO was correct in holding these credits as unexplained in the hands of assessee.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai judgment in Anandkumar Jain vs ITO, highlighting rectification under Section 154 for deduction under Section 80HHC based on subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
Satish Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and submitted before A.O. that original return filed before him may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. […]
Assessee had only purchased software internally developed by non-resident and non-resident had not passed the copyright and only ‘right to use’ had been given to assessee and as such ‘right to use’ was akin to purchase of copyrighted article and in the absence of purchase of any copyright in the article, the assessee could not be held liable to deduct tax at source out of such payments.
