Conclusion: Receipt of agency commission, travel by directors to explore possibilities of getting business and taking premises on lease for the purpose of manufacturing activity was sufficient to conclude that business of assessee had been set up during the relevant previous year, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim deduction of all the expenses under section 37.
Where AO after making adequate enquiries and verification held that forward contract loss was allowable as normal business loss, CIT was not justified in treating the same as speculative one and the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
M/s Runwal Projects Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) There is no dispute with regard to the fact of receipt of on-money from sale of flats. This fact has been admitted by the assessee including its director in the statement recorded during the course of search. This fact is also supported by incriminating material found […]
M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Cochin) A draft order, as such, is not appealable, except to be challenged by the assessee before the DRP, which exercises the power, inter alia, to make enhancement. The very rationale in the giving the power of enhancement to the DRP is to correct the draft order […]
M/s. Terra Infra Development Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Provisions for levy of fee in certain cases has been brought into the Statute book w.e.f. 1.7.2012, it has been brought under the purview of section 200A only w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Therefore, as rightly held by the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Sonalac Paintings & […]
ACIT Vs Smt. Biji Suresh (ITAT Cochin) The provisions contained in section 194G of the Act provides for deduction of TDS by any person who is responsible for paying to any person, who is stocking, distributing, purchasing or selling lottery tickets, any income by way of commission, remuneration or prize on such tickets, at the […]
Deduction under section 10B could not be denied on the ground that the approval of STPI units of the assessee was not ratified by the Board of approvals as mandated u/s 10B.
Sahara Global Vision Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee entered into joint venture by way of participating in a company in USA for distribution of petroleum and chemical products after obtaining approval from RBI. There is also no dispute that the joint venture company in USA was liquidated. The facts on record show that […]
Smt. Kamlesh Goel Vs The I.T.O (ITAT Delhi) The bone of contention is as to whether the Assessing Officer has rightly framed the impugned order within 16 days of disposing of the objections of the assessee. The answer is given by the coordinate bench in the case of Metaplast Engineering P. Ltd in ITA No. […]
Where AO had framed the reassessment under section 148 without issuing notice under section 143(2), the reassessment order was invalid because it is mandatory obligation of AO to serve notice by assigning reasons therein with regard to his belief of escaped tax liability before making assessment of any escaped income.
