ITO Vs M/s Ninja Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee case does not fall under the above category of genuine client code modifications allowed by NSE as we have seen that in large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client […]
Time Media & Entertainment LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In this case there was an unusual and sudden spurt in client code modifications in the month of March 2010 undertaken by Brokers in Stock Exchanges. The assessee had also suffered F&O Loss of Rs.31,98,597.50 through Broker Inventure for transactions undertaken through NSE in the month […]
Hirsh Bracelet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Section 50 of the Act is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets and is applicable only to capital assets forming part of Block of Assets on which depreciation has been allowed under the Act. and also only for the […]
DCIT Vs United Info Planet Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) From the perusal of the Rent Agreement dated 30/08/2007, it can be seen that it is with the sole purpose for rent in respect of the entire building to the Multi National company IBM. The Fit Out Agreement dated 18/01/2008 was entered between the parties for […]
Luthra & Luthra Law Offices Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vaish Associates held that the partners were entitled to annual salary equivalent with percentage of profit multiplied by the allocable profit calculated as per the provisions of section 40(b)(v) of the Act. In the instant case also remuneration […]
M/s. United Investments Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case the assessee had incurred loss on sale of shares after paying STT & these shares were held on investment a/c for period more than 12 months. The assessee claimed that the loss incurred was to be assessed under the head ‘capital gains’ and its set […]
Since no effort was made by AO to serve another notice u/s. 143(2) before the deadline after returning from postal authorities the original notice u/s 143(2) thus, the jurisdictional condition of `service’ of notice u/s. 143(2) and not its `issue’ was not satisfied and accordingly, assessment order passed in absence of a valid jurisdiction was quashed.
The estimate of warranty made by the assessee on the basis of past history cannot be treated as a provision for any ascertained liability and allowed the provision for warranty as deduction.
Pyaribai K Jain Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Leasehold right allotted against right of agricultural land cannot be considered as agricultural land and, therefore, profit on transfer of such leasehold right was taxable under the head ‘capital gains’, however, Assessing Officer was not correct in not allowing cost of acquisition to assessee while computing long-term […]
ITO Vs M/s Ami Riddhi Chem Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee claim to have made purchases of Rs.34,92,40,689/-, therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of purchases made from these parties. The notices issued/served under section 133(6) of the Act, however, there was no reply from the concerned parties. The facts are […]
