it is a very settled position that the power of ITAT in setting aside cannot be exercised so as to allow Assessing Officer to cover up the deficiency in its case.
TDS credit is allowed on deduction of Income under u/s 80IA, 8oIB, 80IC of the act, etc and also TDS credit is allowed on bad debts claimed u/s 36(1 )(vii) of the Act. Accordingly I am of the view that that the Unrealized rent is duly offered to tax by the assessee at first instance, and then the same is claimed as deduction from Rental Income u/s 23(1) of the Act r.w. Rule 4 of the rules.
Ld. AR submitted that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Deepak Bhargawa in I.T.A. No.343/Del/2012 dated 13.11.2014 had clearly held that section 194C would not be applicable for reimbursement of expenditure.
In this case we find that AO has not made any substantive assessment. There may be substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment.
It is a well settled proposition that the question as to whether a person has acted as a trader or as an investor in respect of share transactions, has to be decided on the basis of various factors listed out by the CBDT and Honourable Courts.
Assessee was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment money of Rs.1,30,000/-. The total purchase price of the plot was Rs. 16,75,000/-. 2. The assessee on 28.02.2004 entered into an Agreement to sell in respect of this plot with M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd through its Director […]
It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded.
In the instant case, it is the assessment of person allegedly searched, which is disputed before us, unlike the notice issued for the assessment of `other person’ before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the issue of invalidity of the search warrant in that case was not raised at any point of time prior to […]
The ITAT Mumbai in Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd v. DCIT, held that the sale consideration received by a Singapore based Company on sale of debt instrument is not taxable as capital gain under the Income Tax Act in view of article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ACIT Vs Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665. Tribunal, Chandigarh, has held that the expenditure on telephone installed at the residences of directors is not covered by section 38(2) and expenses in case of a company cannot be for non-business purposes and the […]
