Section 56(2)(viia) not applies to a foreign company prior to 1.4.2019

Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd C/O. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that there is no dispute that the assessee company had acquired the shares of a foreign company from its directors. We also find the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act refers to transaction of acquisition of any property being shares of a company not […]...

Read More

Claim of assessee cannot be rejected for not claiming by way of a valid return

ITO Vs Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Rao (ITAT Mumbai)

AO had duly adjudicated the same on merits in the assessment order itself and hence there is no question of said claim of assessee getting rejected for not claiming the same by way of a valid return....

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied on surmises, conjectures and possibilities

Rajendra Shingi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. Even if some discrepancies were found during the survey resulting in surrender of income by the assessee, once the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed under ...

Read More

Interest Income of CHS from Co-op Bank entitled for Section 80P (2)(d) deduction

Solitaire CHS Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of sub­section (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being i...

Read More

No addition if margin between value  given by assessee & Departmental Valuer was less than 10%

Geetika Sachdev Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

As margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental Valuer was less than 10 percent and the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the lower authorities on this count cannot be sustained...

Read More

Limited scrutiny cannot be expanded without prior approval of appropriate authority

Late Smt. Gurbachan Kaur Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

If the A.O. has taken up the issue of determining fair market value of the property in question as on 01/4/1981 without converting the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny by taking the prior approval of the competent authority then the said order passed by the A.O. will be nullity as beyond his jurisdiction....

Read More

Rent of Director residence allowable if also used for official work

Acuity Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Acuity Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the subject premise in respect of which the assessee has claimed the rental expenses has been taken on lease by the assessee. Though, in the leave and license agreement, it is mentioned that it has been taken on lease for the use of residence of directors/employees, […]...

Read More

Section 206AA not override provisions of section 90(2)

DCIT Vs BEML Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)

Section 206AA does not override provisions of section 90(2) and in case of payment made to non-resident, assessee correctly applied rate of tax prescribed under concerned DTAAs and not as per section 206AA because provisions of the DTAAs were more beneficial and DTAA acquired primacy in such case....

Read More

No Penalty Merely for denial of expenditure claimed as revenue

Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the assessee has offered Explanation as why the transaction of loss of security was claimed as business loss. This Explanation has not found to be false by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee substantiated the Explanation by way of filing relevant documents...

Read More

Explanation 2 to section 263 of Income Tax Act is prospective in nature

Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal CIT (ITAT Delhi)

Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation-2 to section 263 inserted by Finance […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,680)
Company Law (5,954)
Custom Duty (7,737)
DGFT (4,218)
Excise Duty (4,361)
Fema / RBI (4,181)
Finance (4,380)
Income Tax (32,986)
SEBI (3,450)
Service Tax (3,553)