Shri Pawan S. Jalan Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) If we consider the explanation of the assessee filed before the ld.CIT(A), which has been partly reproduced in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on page no.3, then it would reveal that chief accountant of the company was ill and failed to hand over assessment order to the […]
Since all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was satisfied by assessee and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him, therefore, without doing so, the addition made by AO based on conjectures and surmises could not be justified.
The assessee had complied with conditions for grant of deduction under sections 54B inasmuch as he has utilised, within a period of two years from the date of transfer of capital asset, the capital gain in purchasing another land for being used for agricultural purposes, therefore, mere fact that assessee did not get legal title to the land could not be ground to deny benefit of deduction under sections 54B.
Once the financial statements were ratified by the shareholders, assessee had no right to modify the profit declared as per Companies Act and adopt differently for the purpose of MAT provisions. Therefore, the profit adopted by the company in the AGM overlooking the qualification of auditor was the final book profit for the purpose of section 115JB, assessee could not alter the same by claiming that it had not followed certain Accounting Standards.
M/s Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Reopening of assessment by AO on basis of report of Investigation Wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form of share capital/premium/loan during the financial year was not justified as AO had not carried out any further examination and analysis in […]
Partners’ remuneration from firm should not be subject to the application of presumptive interest rate under section 44AD as the same could not be construed as gross receipts or turnover of a business independently carried on by a partner.
CIT should not stop merely on finding that the order was erroneous but also had to establish that the order of AO was prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus, revision could not be made in such a case and the order of AO was restored.
Shri Harish M. Kukreja Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The solitary issue involved in the present appeal is towards extent of disallowance permissible under s.14A of the Act. We find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance under s.14A of the Act cannot surpass the quantum of exempt income in […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Asian Food Industries (ITAT Ahmedabad) This is a settled principle of law that the interest income for the purpose of ascertaining ceiling on the basis of book profit, the profit shall be in the profit and loss account. The interest income, thus, cannot be notionally be excluded for the purpose of determining […]
Payment for removal of encumbrances is deductible u/s 48 (1) as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer. Accordingly, value of flat allotted to Shri Uday should be accordingly reduced from the full value of consideration u/s 48.
