Follow Us:

All ITAT

Determination of annual value of a IInd house which is not let out

February 25, 2009 4646 Views 0 comment Print

4.3 Both the authorities below have taken a view that though section 24(b) does not draw any distinction between a property that is self-occupied and one that is not, the assessee having not disclosed any income (annual value) there-against, and which can only be in respect of one house property, which stands already specified by him (the residential property at Shalimar Enclave, Agra), the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 24(b) is not maintainable.

Date which is material and relevant for purposes of computing limitation period in certain cases under IT Act

February 25, 2009 516 Views 0 comment Print

7. There was a search and seizure action against the assessee on 10-10-1995. In pursuance thereto, the A.0 initiated proceedings u/s 158BC of the Act. Notice u/s 158BC read with section 158BD dated 10-9-1996 was issued to the assessee requiring the assessee to prepare and file the return of income in the prescribed form setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period from 1-4-1985 to 10-10-1995

Assessment of income from running of business centre

February 23, 2009 541 Views 0 comment Print

7. Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully. The question for our consideration is whether the income accruing to the assessee should be assessed as `business income’ as claimed by the assessee or partly as `income from house property’ and partly as `income from other sources’ as held by the Assessing Officer Officer. At the outset, we may mention that the Assessing Officer has committed

When assessee has retracted statement, an addition should be supported by enough material in possession of department

February 23, 2009 4159 Views 0 comment Print

11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has clearly held that an admission by the assessee is not conclusive evidence and it is always open to the assessee who made the submission to show that it is incorrect.

Treatment to be given to income from delivery based share transactions

February 23, 2009 1210 Views 0 comment Print

Gopal Purohit v. JCIT- The delivery based transaction should be treated as of the nature of investment transactions and profit there from should be treated as short-term capital gain or long term capital gain depending upon the period of holding; employment of an infrastructure so as to keep a track of the developments in the share market cannot turn an investment activity into a business activity.

Applicability of section 194D of IT Act in case of a reinsurance company paying commission to insurance companies

February 23, 2009 5712 Views 0 comment Print

32. In order to attract section 194D, the commission or any other payment covered under the section should be a remuneration or reward for soliciting or procuring the insurance business. The insurance companies do not procure business for the assessee company nor does the assessee company pay commission or other payment for soliciting the business from the insurance companies.

Condition precedent for raising presumption under section 132(4A) read with section 292C of IT Act against a person searched

February 23, 2009 6316 Views 0 comment Print

(iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person’s handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested

Exchange Gain on Export of Goods & Service–Export Income (Sec-10B)

February 23, 2009 1427 Views 0 comment Print

10B (4) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the profits derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which Bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of tljie business carried on by the undertaking.”

Tribunal has no power to review its own orders adjudicated on merits

February 23, 2009 2754 Views 0 comment Print

6.9 Right to review is a creature of statute as is right of appeal. The income-tax Act does not confer any power on the appellate authority, to review its own order. A review is not a substitute for an appeal, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Finance & Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Raj) 324; (1980) 125 ITR 404 (Raj). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Globe Transport Corporation

Allowbility of kickbacks/secret commission as business expenditure under section 37(1) of IT Act

February 21, 2009 1830 Views 0 comment Print

“37. (1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid but or expended wholly and. exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession’.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031