Assessee did not disclose income voluntarily but it was disclosed in pursuance to survey conducted under section 133A. Had there not been survey, the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied by AO.
Since AO made addition under section 153 on the basis of documents seized in case of third party but without mentioning of assesse’s name in any legal paper and non-establishment of relationship with searched party, therefore, the same was invalid.
M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the issue under consideration whether the subsidy received under TUF scheme is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. The ld. CIT(A) treated it as part of fixed assets and held that said subsidy should be reduced from the cost of fixed assets. Held by […]
Assessee was eligible for exemption under section 10(37) on interest received by him on enhanced compensation as the same partook the character of compensation paid by government on compulsory acquisition of assessee’s agricultural land.
Smt. Lakshmi Swarupa Vs ITO (ITAT Banglore) In the present case, the clause in the JDA regarding possession clearly states that what is given is not possession contemplated u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and that it is merely a license to enter the property for the purpose of carrying out development. Further, […]
Mathur Lal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Deduction under section 54B was allowable only if purchase of new land was made after the transfer of an existing land. Held: Assessee claimed deduction U/s 54B which included purchase of agricultural land on 16/5/2012. AO denied the claim in respect of the agricultural land purchased on 16/5/2012. […]
Shri Anil Khandelwal Vs ITO (ITAT Indor) Once the condition of further proviso of Section 194C(3) of the Act are satisfied, the liability of the payee to deduct tax at source would cease. Examining the facts of the instant appeal we find that the assessee received Form 15I from the truck owner namely Shri Kishorilal Birla […]
I.T.O. Vs Bajaj Roadways (ITAT Kolkata) Assessee had merely hired the lorries and there was no contract between assessee and the concerned payees, i.e., truck owners. Since the assessee did not delegate its liability of transportation of goods to the truck owners by way of any contract or sub-contract, therefore, the payments made by the […]
ACIT Vs SDV International Logistics Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) it is observed that the assessee company was held to be liable to deduct tax at source by the A.O. from the payment of internet connectivity charges and specialised line rental u/s 194J of the Act being in the nature of royalty by relying on Explanations 4, […]
Smt. Girijakumari M. Vs ITO (ITAT Cochi) Compensation for compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land eligible for section 10(37) benefit The assessee’s 70 cents of land at Vizhinjam Village was notified for compulsory acquisition by Government of Kerala for developing Vizhinjam International Seaport. Though the acquisition proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act, the […]
