Shri Sanjay Gurudasmal Chawla Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 24(b) of the Act for the reason that the assessee claimed such deduction only by way of revised computation in the course of the assessment proceedings. However, this claim of the assessee was entertained by the […]
Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) As regards imposition of penalty on the addition made on account of notional house property income, it goes without saying that in reality the assessee has not earned any income from house property. The Assessing Officer himself has observed that the addition made on account of income […]
In the matter f Issue of Share at High Premium AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing of benefit to the shareholders/directors. Hence ITAT remanded the matter back to AO to re-assess whether the assessee was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to the shareholder / director.
Assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F for the amount invested beyond the prescribed period but before getting the property registered since there was sufficient reason, beyond the control of the assessee, which prevented the assessee from making investment within prescribed time.
Loss on sale of shares held as investment in subsidiary companies is a revenue loss as when holding company invests amounts for business of its subsidiary, it must be held for business expediency.
Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty.
Foreign travelling expenditure incurred by law firm for the pleasure tour by the counsels and their family members was not in relation to any business activity of assessee-firm, therefore, the same was not allowable
Navas M. Meeran Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) Conclusion: Lease rent received by assessee by letting out the industrial undertaking was not having any direct connection with the manufacture or production of an article or thing by assessee and the same could not be considered as business income eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB. Held: Assessee had […]
Addition under section 68 on mere reason of non-production of directors in the person of shareholder companies was not justified and AO had not brought any cogent material on records in assessment order to demolish the copious evidences furnished by assessee.
When income which was the foundation on which he based his belief of escapement of income was absent /disappeared then AO’s very usurpation of jurisdiction was on non-existing jurisdictional fact which rendered his usurpation of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment legally untenable and so null in the eyes of law and therefore, the reassessment made by AO without jurisdiction was quashed.
