Section 251(2) provides that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall not embark on enhancement of an assessment unless the assessee has been granted a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such We find no reference to the issuance of enhancement notice in the appellate order of the CIT(A).
Bombay High Court decision upheld the DRP order in excluding 6 companies, from the list of comparables chosen by the TPO, on the basis of turnover and size. Following it , we uphold the DRP order in excluding the above 6 companies, from the list of comparables chosen by the TPO, on the basis of turnover and size.
This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 971/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 has come up for hearing today i.e. 23-02.2017 whereby ld. Counsel Shri Hiten Chande,CA on behalf of the assessee and Mrs. Malathi Sridharan, CIT DR on behalf of the Revenue were present. The Assessing officer was also present during the course of hearing.
ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely on the basis of assessee’s dealing with parties who were found out to be hawala dealers by the sales tax department.
In a recent ruling, the ITAT Jabalpur, decided the case in favour of the assesse, deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 5.07 lacs. The court held that under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961
In this case the bonus was determined after finalisation of accounts in the month of September 2009. The same related to income for the period ended 31st March 2009. The company which is the employer of the assessee did not deduct TDS of the said income till filing of income tax return by the assessee.
ITAT held that holding period should be computed from the date of issue of allotment If we do so, the holding period becomes more than 36 months and consequently, the property sold by the assessee would be long term capital asset in the hands of the assessee and the gain on sale of the same would be taxable in the hands of the assessee as Long Term Capital Gain
It is a fairly settled law that forfeiture of share application money which has been duly received by the appellant in terms of prospect and credited to capital reserve account was a capital receipt.
Amount withdrawn from General Reserve on account of reinstatement of employees benefit obligation is allowable while computing Book Profit u/ s 115JB as same is an obligation of the assessee as an employer and is an ascertained liability.
Assessee pointed out that the property in question was intended to be purchased for the purpose of constructing office premises and was directly related to the business of the assessee and therefore the deduction claimed should be allowed. As in the present case the Assessee did not acquire any capital asset and merely paid advance […]
