Axis Risk Consulting Services Private Limited. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) the only dispute before us is with regard to the adjustment by way of imputing interest @ 17.22% by the TPO on account of receivables from the AE. Here in this case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has also rendered similar services […]
Income Transferred from Capital Fund A/c to Income is eligible for deduction U/s. 11of Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of Section 11(3)(c) of the Act clearly permits to utilize the funds either within the specified period or in the next year immediately following the expiry of the period
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
Manohar Reddy Basani Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessing Officer having concluded that the assessee having neither disclosed the capital gains in the return of income nor claimed any deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to get any deduction u/s 54F, in the same way he should not have added the […]
Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of investment in capital markets. Assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,35,493/-. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that there were unsecured loans to the extent of Rs. 19.25 Crs under ‘advances recoverable in cash or kind.
ACIT Vs Chaitanya Educational Trust (ITAT Hyderabad) Since the assessee has filed the certificates of the recipients with proof that the recipients have offered the income to tax in their hands, the assessee shall not be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT All are […]
Since trade advances obtained by assessee from its sister concern were in the nature of commercial transactions, would not fall within the ambit of the word ‘advance’ in section 2(22)(e).
When assessee utilised sale consideration of property in construction of another residential property within prescribed time period, then, merely on account of the fact that the assessee had neither declared the transaction of sale of property nor made any claim of deduction under section 54F in the return of income, deduction under section 54F could not be denied.
The facts in brief qua the issue raised in the grounds are that assessee filed its return of income electronically for the AY. 2009-10 on 23-09-2009, declaring NIL income. This return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the total income was determined at Rs. 69,19,580/- u/s.
Explore Amit Parekh’s appeal against the denial of Section 54 exemption by ITAT Kolkata. Key details of the case and legal insights revealed.
