The brief facts of the case are that the assessee case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued and served upon the assessee requiring him to furnish necessary details and documents along with supporting evidence.
ACIT Vs V. V. N. Varadhan Kumar (ITAT Chennai) Ld.CIT(A) had made a clear cut finding after examining the books of accounts of the assessee that the amount received by the assessee was only repayment of loan extended by the assessee to the company. It appears that the assessee in his books of account instead […]
Where due to pending disputes with debtors, sales commission could not be paid to agents for longer period, taxation of such liability payable to agents under section 41(1) was not justified.
As AO failed to arrive at satisfaction as to non-correctness of assessee’s claim as regards no expenditure against exempt income, invocation of rule 8D was in contravention of section 14A(2) and, therefore, disallowance was deleted.
It is not in dispute that the assessee had been following LIFO method regularly for valuation of closing stock since its inception. It is not in dispute that the LIFO method adopted by the assessee had been accepted by the revenue in the past. It is not in dispute that the LIFO method is also one of the recognized methods for valuation of closing stock.
These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 14/08/2015 for A.Y.1997-98 and 2003-04, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271 (1 )(c) of the IT Act.
Dnyanoba Shajirao Jadhav Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Interest awarded u/s. 23(1A) and 23(2) r.w.s. 28 of the L.A. Act is in the nature of solitium and an integral part of compensation. It is an admitted position that the receipt of compensation awarded under L.A. Act is a capital receipt. Whereas, interest awarded u/s. 34 of the […]
No penalty under Sec. 27(1)(c) of the Act could have been imposed on the assessee in respect of the addition of an amount of Rs. 47,66,952/- made by the A.O towards notional income of the villa owned by the assessee at Dubai.
ITAT held that the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal, and was very much reasonable, keeping in mind the riches and high status and more customary practices.
Non-debiting of the expenditure in the books of account is not relevant for allowability of the same as long as the expenditure is really incurred and is deductible as per law
