The objection of the revenue that the assessee intentionally waited for mechanical lapse of 36 months and deliberately put the date on agreement as 18-11-2009 to avoid the payment of tax is not tenable.
CIT is not justified in rejecting registration on the ground that the non-production of books and vouchers means that the genuineness of the charitable activities cannot be verified. The CIT is entitled only to examine the objects of the trust at the stage of registration and not the books of account
Devaram C. Bhavani Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We have given a thoughtful consideration to the notings in the impounded document, viz. Annexure A-2– Page 37 & Page 105 and are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the lower authorities. We find that as against the working of the amount […]
ITO Vs. M/s. Arandi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer treated loss in future and options (F&O) transactions as speculation loss and disallowed the same. We find that on this issue, the A.O. has referred to Honorable Delhi High Court decisions on identical issue. The Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT […]
ITO (E) Vs. M/s Young Women’s Christian Association of Delhi (ITAT Delhi) Unrecognized courses are also comes within the meaning of education or in other words, it can be said that the charitable purposes includes relief to the poor, education (yoga), medical relief, preservation of environment and preservation of monuments or placed or objects of […]
It is seen that the grounds on which the ALP determined by the assessee has been rejected are reasonably debatable. The assessee had obtained a transfer pricing study from an outside expert and the objectivity of the same was not called into question.
Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee has given an explanation that keeping in view smallness of the amount being addition of Rs. 2,16,441/- and also keeping in view that the assessee had claimed a loss of more than of Rs. 9 crores in the return of income filed with the Revenue […]
Assessee-wife was not entitled to claim and be allowed exemption under Section 54 and 54 EC on the basis that both assessee’s being husband and wife had suo motu offered rental income equally in their returns of income and their intentions were that said property was a joint property and both of them having equal share therein because as per the recitals in the purchase and registered sale deeds of the aforesaid property, assessee-husband alone was the sole legal owner of the said property to the exclusion of all others, including his wife.
These are appeals filed by two assessees who are wife and husband. One appeal in IT(IT)A No.12/Bang/2014 is by Smt.Veena Nambyar directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) -4, Bangalore dt.20.2.2014, in respect of the order of assessment passed. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dt.27.12.2011.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi in appeal No. 03/12-13 for the AY 1997-98 passed u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short].
