The main plea of assessee was that because of multiplity of proceedings going on before different authorities filing of captioned appeal was delayed. The AR for the assessee had filed before ITAT an events chart of various assessment proceedings / appellate proceedings between the period 28.12.2007 to 21.05.2015, on which date the appeal was filed before the Tribunal.
Shri. B. S. Byregowda (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Income from sale of cocoons cannot be regarded as agricultural income in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Lakshmanan & Co. Vs. CIT (2000) 108 Taxman 167 (SC); wherein it was held that income derived by the assessee […]
Amount advanced by Portescap to Videojet in which assessee was a common shareholder holding substantial shareholding could not be termed as loan falling within the purview of sec. 2(22)(e) as the same was shown in the balance-sheet of Portescap as well as Videojet as inter-corporate deposit (ICD).
India Today Online Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Addition of difference premium amount of Rs. 20/- per share in assessee-company on the ground that M company was a loss-making company was not justified as assessee had substantiated the shares issued at Rs. 30 per share was less than the FMV and the underlying […]
Shri Manoj Dewan Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) We note that though sufficient opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT (A) to the assessees for presenting their cases, however, when the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not appearing on 20.11.2018 and also filed an application in advance wherein it was stated that the ld. […]
Sh. Jai Pal Gaba Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The very language of the section 28(iv) speaks about the value of any benefit or perquisite arising from business or exercise of a profession. Now considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though, the loan was taken for the purpose of business but the same was […]
Exemption u/s 54F allowable despite start construction new house before sale date original asset
Held, That The Assessing Officer had conducted enquiry and after various rounds of hearing and deliberation with the assessee and scrutinizing the documents filed before him as well as submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had passed an order.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in charging depreciation at the rate of 30% on wheel loaders and graders?
Payments made by assessee-university to its employees towards death cum retirement gratuity, commutation of pension or leave salary should not be liable for TDS to the extent permitted under the provisions of section 10(10)(i), 10(10A) and 10(10AA) as the employees of assessee were found to be holding civil posts under the State Government, therefore, the provisions of section 10(10)(i), 10(10A) and 10(10AA) were fully attracted.
