He held that the amount in question thus represented provision for meeting unascertained liabilities which was not allowable as deduction in the case of the assessee. He accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 2,25,01,129/- on account of future development expenses and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2016.
Where services provided by employees of BGIL were merely in the nature of routine support services, the same could not be termed as ‘FTS’ under Article 13 of the India UK DTAA, therefore, there was no requirement for assessee to deduct taxes from such payments in India u/s 195.
Assessee was not entitled to claim of deduction under section 54F as assessee had failed to deposit the unutilized amount of capital gains in the capital gains scheme account by the due date of filing of return of income.
Where assessee had purchased new residential house utilizing own funds lying in his saving bank account, deduction under section 54F could not be denied on the allegation that assessee did not utilize capital gains for investment purpose because source of utilization of fund is irrelevant for claiming benefit of deduction under section 54F.
Merely the payment of investigation charges to the chartered accountant firm was made by the bank on behalf of the assessee did not mean that the transaction was covered under the provisions of section 194A read with section 2(28A). As such the assessee was liable to deduct the TDS under section 194J and thus, assessee was not eligible for deduction for the expenses due to non-deduction of TDS.
Income from purchase and sale of shares was liable to be taxed under the capital gain instead of income under the head business and profession as the frequency, magnitude of transaction in a systematic manner could not be the criteria to hold that assessee was engaged in the business activity of shares.
Mere fall in GP rate could not be the ground for making in-depth inquiry. As per section 145(3), books could be rejected only in the situation where AO was not satisfied about the correctness / completeness of the accounts of the assessee.
Provision for interest liability which was accrued but not provided for in books of account would be deductible under section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Smt. Rashmi Mujumdar Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) We are surprised to note that the Ld.CIT(A) did not allowed the claim of silver articles weighing 609 grams and 280 grams valuing Rs.24,639/- and Rs.9856/-. CBDT instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, CBDT directs the income tax authorities conducting the search not to seize the jewellery ornaments found during […]
ssessment made by AO in the name of the legal heir without issuing notice u/ 148 was not valid as the notice under section 148 was required to be issued to a correct person and not to a dead person and the same was not a merely a procedural requirement but was a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law.
