A mere suspicion that given the nature of expenses, it is likely that incurrence of such expenditure is for non-business purposes, in our view, cannot be a basis for making the addition in the hands of the assessee.
Addition in respect of completed assessments u/s 153A be made solely on the basis of post search enquiry when no incriminating material was unearthed during search is not valid.
Interest earned on deposit of surplus funds could not be taxed as business income in view of the fact assessee was not in the business of money-lending.
Legal and professional fees paid in connection with the transfer of shares was allowable as deduction from long term capital gain under section 48(i) as the expenditure incurred was wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of shares of the Indian Subsidiary.
Assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section 54F on gain earned on the sale of factory shed as factory shed inherently being long-term capital asset as per the provision of Section 2(42A) even if sale of factory shed was subject to short-term capital gain on the basis of deeming provision as specified under section 50.
Conclusion: Since assessee- AOP was a trust formed for the benefit of a sole beneficiary, therefore, applying individual tax rates to assessee-AOP was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record and therefore, it could not be rectified through Section 154.
When assessee made it very clear in return of income that she was not maintaining any books of account, then, making addition under section 68 was untenable in law as section 68 was applicable only when credits were found in books of account of the assessee.
Shri Hitesh H Budhbhatti Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The allowability of interest expenditure on borrowed capital for purchase of residential house under s.24 of the Act is in question. As per Section 23(2) of the Act, the gross annual value of the residential house shall be taken at ‘nil’ where such house is in the […]
Where assessee-director was able to establish the relation between expenditure incurred by credit card with the business of the company in which assessee was a director, the expenses incurred was allowable to that extent.
Process-cum-Product Development Centre Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Where assessee-society engaged only in imparting research based education/allowable skill training to students in manufacturing of sports goods and leisure equipments without any profit motive to enable them to get placement, it would cover within the definition of education u/s 2(15) and hence, entitled for exemption under […]
