Law does not permit the revenue to reject the amount determined as rent or license fees by the assesse on mere doubt or suspicion. There has to be cogent and satisfactory material to indicate that the rent or fees determined by the parties are not indicative of the fair or market rent.
Assessee was a non-employee director and share holder in the company and no salary or director’s fees was paid to her by the company during the year under consideration.
These appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur for assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 19-11-2015; assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 20-11-2015
Where the impugned amount is not claimed by the assessee by way of deduction under sections 30 to 38 of the Act while computing the income of the assessee under the head Profits and gains of business or profession the question of making any dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act will not arise
Where assessee, under a bona fide belief that UID kit being a part of computer claimed depreciation at 60%. Tribunal held that disallowance of claim would not result in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in any immovable property. The power of attorney is a creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor […]
Gyan Chand Agarwal Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue in this ground is whether the sale consideration of the land belonging to Shri Sultan Meena can be taxed in the hands of the assessee, who is admittedly Power of Attorney holder of Shri Sultan Meena. There is no dispute with regard to the fact […]
There are two appeals under consideration pertaining to two different assessees for the AY 2005-06. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both these appeals are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order.
As assessee was not the owner of toll road, but had been given the right to develop, maintain and operate the toll road and to further collect the toll for the specified period, then this right was an intangible asset falling under section 32(1)(ii) and expenditure on development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility as incurred by the assessee was not revenue in nature and therefore, could be amortized.
Supraja’s Sandy Lane Bar & Restaurant Vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) As per 153C of Income Tax Act for invoking jurisdiction, there must be incriminating material found and seized during the course of search in form of money, bullion, jewellery or the evidences indicating the inflation of e expenditure or undisclosed investments or suppression of Income.etc. […]
