In a significant ruling, the ITAT Delhi held that approval by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not a mandatory requirement to allow deduction of contribution towards EPF under section 38(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has framed the scheme under the Employees provident Fund Act, 1952.
Challenging the order dated 3-5-2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, the assessing officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, deriving income from house property, filed its return of income on 18-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 1.5 crores. The assessing officer completed the assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, on 4-12-2009, determining its income at Rs. (-)9.46 lakhs.
The Delhi ITAT, in a recent ruling, held that imposing penalty by quoting wrong section would not itself make the entire proceedings invalid if the assessee had not raised any objection during pre-assessment stage and has co-operated with the proceedings.
if relevant details of address or PAN Identity are furnished to the Department along with the copies of shareholder register, share application form, share transfer register etc, it would constitute acceptable proof or acceptable explanation by assessee.
Where AO had only considered the discrepancy regarding gross receipts but did not carry out any inquiry in regard to the nexus between business receipts and cash deposits which was the specific direction of the Tribunal, Commissioner was justified in making revision order since the order was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 14,36,653 which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I. T. Act by treating the purchase are genuine without appreciating the fact that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties were returned unnerved as addressee was not available at the given address.
Issue before us is as to whether the assessee trust, which is for the sole benefit of an individual, will be entitled to deduction u/s. 54F or not, when its status is that of A.O.P. As per Section 54F the benefits of this section is available to individual or Hindu undivided family (HUF). Hon’ble jurisdictional […]
Reference to DVO for determination of market value for the purpose of computation of capital gains under section 48 would be wholly redundant since main thrust of section 48 is the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset and not the fair market value thereof.
1. Research and development services provider could not be compared to a company and Transfer pricing Adjustment are not sustainable. 2. A concern mainly engaged in sale of chemical compounds could not be considered as a right comparable with that of assessee rendering support services in connection with research and development of certain products to an […]
Non-compete fee Incurred by IMPL is a capital expenditure which is in the nature of any other business or commercial rights and hence eligible for depreciation under the provisions of the Act. T
