A sum of Rs.7 lakhs, shown to have been received as gift from Shri Jamaluddin Sheik Fareed, was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished confirmation letter from the party.
ITAT Mumbai held in case of ACIT vs. Suryashankar Properties Limited that Intention of letting out the property is to be seen for invoking clause (c) of section 23(1) for computing the annual letting value of the property and it is irrelevant whether the property is/was let out.
In the case M/s. Ashok Trading Co. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that as per sub-section (2) of 115WD, if the assessee had not filed the return of Fringe Benefit but in the opinion of the AO he should have filed the return
In the case of Pankaj Plastic Industries Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that The materials found in the course of survey would not be the basis for making any addition in the assessment. The word “may” used in section 133A (3)(iii) of the Act makes it clear that the materials collected
ITAT Delhi held in the case American Express (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT that even though the assessee in its TP study has included the turnover filter of less than Rs.1 crore, the assessee has given reasons for inclusion of these two companies in the list of comparables
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Sri Surakshitha Homes vs. ITO held that where the AO has assessed income on estimation basis then CIT cannot order to revise the assessment by picking and choosing some aspects of estimation to be re-verified.
We find that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act except under certain specific, provisions like section 35D. Therefore, unless statutory provision is there to defer the revenue expenditure over a period
Section 194A (3) (b) Imposes duty on a co-operative society engaged in banking to deduct TDS where amount exceeds Rs. 10,000/-, whereas section 194A (3) (v) grants specific exemption to cooperative societies where payment made by it to members or to another co-operative society.
It is a general presumption that, expenditure in acquisition of assets is a capital expenditure there by not eligible for deduction u/s 37 (1) of the IT Act (However depreciation is allowed as per IT Rules) The honorable CIT (A) failed to note the difference in the nature of the soft-wares as dealt in Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
The decision of the case is based on the verdict by Apex Court of India in the case of TRF Limited Vs CIT, [323 ITR 397 (SC)] Where Honorable Court has held that, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable.
