Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause not to let out this property. Therefore, the Notional Income from the said property lying vacant due to Act of Government cannot be added back.
Rakesh Kumar Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) The permissive right to use the SIM cards to get access to the phone network of the telecom companies is given only to the ultimate customers who have activated the connections. Thus, in the case of the telecom company, it is the owner of the prepaid voucher/SIM card and […]
As could be seen, the compensation received by the assessee was not for his professional activities but for settlement of dispute between him and some other party resulting in filing of a criminal complaint. That being the case, the amount received towards compensation/damage cannot fit in to the definition of income as per section 2(24) r.w.s 4 of the Act.
Shri Mukesh Choksi Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It was submitted that the case of the assessee was akin to the share brokers and therefore only the commission should be considered as receipts of the assessee and not the purchase/ sale value of shares. In our view the claim had been rightly rejected by the CIT(A). […]
Prestige Estates Projects Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) It is seen that the amounts received by the appellants in respect of 3 activities undertaken by them i.e. ‘assignment transfer income’, assessment and bifurcation fees, ‘Khata transfer fees’ and ‘forfeiture’ amounts find their origin in the agreement with prospect to buyers in […]
DCIT Vs Star Wire Ind. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer himself has recorded the statement of Shri Mohinder Kumar Gupta in the assessment order, wherein the Director of the Company has elaborated the transaction which was also confirmed by Mr. Kailash Chandra Agarwal. The assessee Company through its […]
DCIT Vs Moni Kumar Subba (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, the AO added notional interest on the interest free security for arriving at annual letting value. Since that was not permissible, the effect would be that such assessment was rightly set aside by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. Therefore, the orders would not […]
Assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the Act in respect of the interest income earned on FDRs made for the purposes of keeping margin money or for availing any other credit facility from banks.
Vague information given by DIT (inv) there is no other material the AO collected after preliminary enquiry which could have enabled him at the time of recording reasons to come to a conscious independent conclusion that income of the assessee has escaped assessment.
There was no new tangible material evidence brought on record by AO. Assessment was reopened only on the basis of details available on record and wrongly interpreted by AO.
