Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30th December 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 53, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 2,57,246, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12.
DCIT Vs Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Given facts of the present case that whatever test may be applied in deciding whether any expenditure is allowable as a deduction under section 37, the essential requirement must in every case be as to whether the expenditure was either in reality or as a […]
It is crystal clear proposition of law that when there is no element of income and there is mere reimbursement made there is no question of deduction of TDS.
The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) on total income including the income received from lease rental on open yard. The A.O. observed that since open yard is not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of Section 80IA(4) of the Act,
Whether interest paid by assessee on loan taken for repaying the loan earlier borrowed for acquisition of the property is allowed as deduction u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961?
Under sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to examine the accounts of the assessee and only when he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to exempt income,
Thus, section 2(22)( e) of the Act covers only such situations, where the shareholder alone benefits from the loan. In the instant case the company benefits from the said transaction, it will take the character of a commercial transaction and hence will not qualify to be dividend.
We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly followed the law laid down in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions (supra). The ld. DR could neither rebut the findings of First Appellate Authority nor any contrary judgment was brought to our notice. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal of the Department is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Amount received by the assessee on account of subletting the property is only income from house property and has to be treated as such. In such circumstances there is no justification of allowing expenses against the house property income other than that provided as deduction under the scheme of computation of house property income.
Bogus penny stock capital gains: Claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker’s contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular banking channels and the demat account.
