In the case of En-Vision Enviro Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, it was held that deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be disallowed, merely on the ground that the assessee must be owner of the infrastructure facilities and the assess should be a developer and not contractor.
In the case of ACIT vs M/s.Goel Investments Ltd., ITAT Lucknow affirmed the earlier order of ITAT in a similar case of the same assessee that once provisions of section 14A of the IT Act are to be invoked, the disallowance is to be computed as per rule 8D of the IT rules.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that merely because prices of land has gone up, rent cannot be increased particularly to persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act without looking into agreement in respect of rent for the earlier years and for the present year
The assessee-company is a Civil Contractor as well as trading in sarees and fabrics. The assessee-company filed its return of income on 28-09-2008 declaring total income at Rs.3,07,285/-. As noted by AO, the assessee could not produce the books of account and supporting bills and vouchers.
he barrage of indiscriminate allegations include misuse of official position, corruption, insulting him and son: colluding with retired income tax officers to harm his client so on and so forth. The severity of accusations and fury emerging from their language is highly derogatory, defamatory and contemptuous, sent with a scheme and clear intention to intimidate judicial officers to desist from passing an unfavorable order.
The ITAT ,Delhi in the case of. ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma concluded that The limitation period of six months and not one year is applicable in case the penalty order is passed by the AO pursuant to confirmation of penalty by the tribunal
The tribunal in the verdict of Shailendra H. Bhatia vs. ITO concluded that Transfer of possession with the ownership rights confer beneficial ownership which is good enough to hold the asset as capital asset
In the case of M/s. Majestic Exports vs. JCIT, ITAT Chennai held that the loss in the transactions of the forex derivatives contracts will be considered to be the business loss and the same can be set off against the business income.
It cannot be said that the land owned by the assessee was a vacant land. The character of the land has changed and it was no more plot of the land. Urban land, no doubt, is subject to the tax under the Wealth Tax Act, but, in our opinion, it will cover only the vacant land.
ITAT Chandigarh held in the case M/s Himlayan Expressway Limited vs. ITO that it is clear that the borrowed funds were not required by the assessee for business purposes. Therefore, the same funds were surplus funds in nature for that period which was utilized for making term deposits on which the assessee earned the interest.
