Where rental income was received by assessee as owner of flat same was to be assessed under head income from house property and not as business income, as flat was not stock-in-trade in assessee-builder’s case.
Where there was any shortfall due to difference of opinion or taxability of any items or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, assessee could be declared to be assessee-in-default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia) and therefore, disallowance made was to be deleted.
Civil Services Institute Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is observed from communication between assessee and Government of Uttarakhand Department of Culture, Tourism and Games, Dehradun, dated 01/12/14, that funds were released, as ‘corpus fund’ for operation of Civil Services Institute construction at Dehradun. It is also observed that only reason for disallowance of claim of […]
DCIT Vs. Babcock Borsig Ltd. & Vice-Versa (ITAT Kolkata) Liabilities brought forward from amalgamating company written off by the amalgamated company (assessee) become its Business income- i.e. Profit chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had written off the liabilities after coming to a conscious conclusion that those […]
Smt. Ranjana R. Deshmukh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, though the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase the new property viz. A-801, Lodha Luxuria on 29.01.2009, but then the possession of the same was delivered to her only as on 18.05.2012. We are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the ld. A.R […]
Nutan Malpani Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We noticed that when the assessee is having a regular business connection with the company and in that process, assessee receives or pays certain advances, they can be considered as ‘trade advances’ and not otherwise. In the given case, certain transactions which were treated by the Assessing Officer as […]
Galgotia Publication (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The present assessee before us is a company and is an entity recognised by law, as a legal person, that exist in eyes of law independently with rights and liabilities. Thus no element of personal expenses by the Directors/Office bearers can be attributed, without, there being sufficient […]
It is not disputed that that the withdrawal of the Circulars No. 23 and 786 has been made on 22-10-2009 vide CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2009 and mere withdrawal of the circular does not negate the principles of income deemed to accrue or arise in India or outside India.
Where claim of deduction had came up with a complete disclosure of all the facts by way of a note to the Computation of Income (COI) filed with assessee’s Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was called for :Novartis India case
Benefit u/s 54 can be availed even if plot was purchased prior to sale of property provided construction of the house property is completed within the time frame provided in Section 54.
