Follow Us:

All ITAT

TPO cannot conclude presence of international transaction u/s 92B merely surmises

October 1, 2018 960 Views 0 comment Print

Moet Hennessy India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)  In the present case, no new facts have emerged and all the facts brought to record, during the course of the assessment proceedings, do not indicate legally sustainable basis for coming to the conclusion that there was an internal transaction in respect of AMP expenses incurred […]

S. 68: Private limited co cannot say that it has no clue about Shareholders

October 1, 2018 1230 Views 0 comment Print

Pee Aar Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee before us is a private limited company which is, by law, prohibited from offering its securities for subscription by general public. It cannot, therefore, be really open to the assessee to say that we have no clue about who the subscribers to the share capital […]

Where issue is a debatable legal issue, penalty U/s. 271(1)(c ) not leviable: PVR case

October 1, 2018 3399 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah Many cases are emerging out in which it is being held that where a claim by assessee is in respect of a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) cannot be imposed. Recently, in DCIT vs. PVR […]

TDS U/s. 195 on Grant of license for copyrighted software for internal business purposes

October 1, 2018 19173 Views 0 comment Print

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We shall first advert to the remittance of USD 100,000 made by the assessee towards licence fees to M/s Fair Isaac International Corpn. We have perused the copy of the agreement entered into by the assessee with M/s Fair Isaac International Corpn i.e “Fair Isaac Order […]

ITAT on release of person arrested for non-payment of tax dues on subsequent Stay

September 30, 2018 1359 Views 0 comment Print

Devinder Singh Gill Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Since the recovery in this case has been stayed subject to the deposit of Rs. 20 lacs, in total, and if the assessee deposit Rs. 20 Lacs as ordered above, in that event, there will be no reason left with the TRO to keep the assessee in jail. […]

ITAT allows Proportionate Vacancy Allowance for period of Vacancy

September 30, 2018 1605 Views 0 comment Print

Saif Ali Khan Pataudi Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case the property or part thereof was vacant during the period, the proportion deduction should be allowed from the sum on which the property might reasonably be let out from year to year. We find that it is the plea of the assessee that due to […]

Deduction U/s. 54 on Investment in 4 adjacent flats made into single residential house

September 29, 2018 5889 Views 1 comment Print

Where assessee had independently acquired multiple flats, which, however, were joined together and used by the assessee as a single residential unit, the claim for exemption under section 54 in respect of total investment made towards acquisition of the said flats could not be denied.

ITAT on Set-Off of Capital Loss via Sham Transaction against Capital Gain

September 29, 2018 1737 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs M/s. B S. Infosolution Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Held that No prudent person with some commercial prudence would pay a hefty premium of Rs. 190/- on a book value of Rs. 82/-, hold it for one year, and then sell the same shares at book value. Further Though the premium is justified […]

Income from frequent Sale/Purchase of shares within small duration is business Gain

September 28, 2018 3384 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs M/s Divya Shakti Trading Services Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In this case assessee has purchased and sold scrips multiple times, on various dates alleged to have been held as investment within small duration. The magnitude of purchases on each date has been very large in respect of all these shares. Thus in our considered opinion frequency and volume […]

Transfer of a portion of land in lieu of built-up area on retained land vid JDA was transfer u/s 2(47)(v)

September 28, 2018 2895 Views 0 comment Print

By virtue of JDA, assessee was parting with a portion of its land and in consideration thereof, was receiving built-up area on the land retained by it which was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) however, AO was directed to re-compute the capital gain again by considering only elements which were necessary for the construction of the building as the cost of construction, and not the entire expenditure of the builder, including the compensation agreed to be paid to K and also the finance charges etc., which were not relevant for computing the cost of the construction. 

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930