ITAT opined that the assessee derived advantage by deferring its income to the extent of excess warranty provision to subsequent years. Therefore, such excess provision cannot be allowed as a deduction as it cannot be said to be reliable.
The issue under consideration is whether interest u/s 201(1A) will be levied on assessee even if NRI seller had already paid taxes as per his return?
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a […]
When all requisite details were already on record with supporting evidences and same were duly examined by AO, the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudice to interest of Revenue.
Expenditure incurred on the software is eligible for depreciation @60%, depreciation on the block of assets of website development cost eligible @ 60%: Re: appeal A.Y. 2006-07 of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Geojit Investment Services Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Cochin) The assessee-company in the instant case, had received the compensation for not carrying on any activities in relation to its commodity trading business. The compensation so paid for not carrying any activity in relation to any business (commodity trading business) would be taxable going by the […]
Agarwal Global Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We observe that even if we consider the selling price @ 30,675.56 by M/s Gautham Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and the same was purchased from the assessee @ 25,000/- per MT with tax, the difference would be Rs. 4,500/- per MT. We gave opportunity to both […]
Kalyan Constructions Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Provisions of Section 40A(3) mention that where an assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payments were made to a person otherwise than by way of crossed cheque or account payee cheque, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of such expenditure. It is humbly submitted that when the […]
The word held used in section 2(14) implies right over a capital asset. In the instant case, right over the property was held by assessee for the period of 36 months, by paying first installment and builder issued a provisional letter of allotment and from that period, assessee had been enjoying legal right over the said property.
Nine Dot Nine Mediaworx (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Once assessee had submitted that no expenditure incurred for earning dividend income, the AO was under legal obligation to demonstrate as to how he was not satisfied with the contention of assessee and only, thereafter, he could have proceeded to make a disallowance. As was […]
