DCIT Vs Smt. Sriram Satyavathi (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The fact that the company M/s. Vijetha Constructions has taken the advances for sale of flats was substantiated by the registered sale agreements. The same cheque No. and the dates were mentioned in the promissory note and the sale deeds which fortifies the assessee’s contention that the promissory […]
In the case of The Income-tax Officer vs M/s. Shree Kastbhanjan Dev Developers, the Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proclaimed in its recent order that firm cannot be assessed for unexplained cash credits in respect of capital introduction by its partner.
ACIT Vs. Sh. Mohinder Singh (ITAT Chandigarh) Nature of receipt of income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller The nature of receipt of the income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller would not fall under the head ‘Capital Gains’ but ‘income from other […]
M/s. Gujrani & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the audit expenses of Rs. 5,19,238/- were claimed to be incurred by the assessee- company towards traveling and conveyance of the Articled Clerks, who were C.A. students receiving training from the assessee- firm. It was contended by the assessee during the […]
Undisputedly, interest-free funds available with assessee were far in excess of amount advanced to sister concern and a presumption would arise in favour of the assessee that interest-free funds had been utilized for advancing interest free loan to the sister cocnern, therefore, disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified.
LOAN AND ADVANCES –Interest free funds available with the assessee is in excess of amount advanced to sister concern. There is no nexus between the interest bearing funds and the money so advanced to sister concern which has been established by AO. In view of the same, a presumption will arise in favour of assessee that interest free funds have been utilized for advancing such advance to sister concern.
In the recent landmark judgement of Texport Overseas Private Limited v. DCIT [IT(TP)A No. 1722/Bang/2017], Honorable Bangalore Tribunal held that: it would be deemed that clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act”) was never been on the statute as it has been omitted w.e.f. April 01, 2017 vide Finance Act, 2017 and nothing was specified whether the proceeding initiated or action taken on this continue.
These are appeals by the Assessee against three orders all dated 13.06.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-I, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09.
Indore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) by considering the fact that the assessee conceded the transaction of Sale of Agricultural Land in the hands of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
We are unable to approve the findings of Ld. CIT(A). Whether the payment is in cash or by way of cheque, the Central Excise amount paid would be eligible for deduction, out of the receipts of the business concern.
