P.S. Jayaraman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that deduction u/s 54F was solely due to difference in interpretations of the provisions and therefore, the penalty was not to be levied on this count. However, the provisions of Sec. 54EC were clear that the investment in a financial year was not […]
Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On appraisal of the evidences placed before us, we find that vide notice dated 10.08.2018 specific queries were raised by the AO in relation to the issue raised for the purposes of limited scrutiny, i.e., ‘Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period’. In response, the assessee has […]
Balaji Auto Enterprises Mysore Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT observe from the order of the AO that the assessee has received cash more than 2.00/- Lakh from the four parties on different dates. As per the opinion of the AO the assessee has violated the provision of section 269ST, therefore, he imposed the […]
Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is pertinent to note that the assessee company made provision in Mining Closure Fund as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Coal which is mandatory to each mining company. It is not disputed fact that the assessee made claim u/s 43B every year […]
Deep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee consistently followed that the income derived from the lease charges on the multiplex is a business income of the assessee in earlier years as well as in the present year. The assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal which on merit, the assessee has succeeded. […]
Ishwarsingh Ramchandra Jangid Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Prima facie it appears that the assessee is not in town during the specific period of assessment proceedings as well as the proceedings before the CIT(A) and the assessee’s consultant has not taken proper measure for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also not appeared before the […]
ITAT Bangalore held that orders passed u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act without mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and deemed to have been never issued. Hence TP adjustments made through the order is also invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that amendment to section 50C of the Income Tax Act stating that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration for such transfer is retrospective in nature and effective from 1st April 2003.
ITAT Chennai held that permit charges paid to Government to operate buses in the state is revenue expenditure. Accordingly Pondicherry permit charges paid to Government of Pondicherry to operate buses in the state of jurisdiction of Pondicherry is allowable revenue expenditure.
Devki Nandan Bindal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Board has clarified that the turnover does not include the sales affected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purposes of section 44AB where the agents act only as an agent of his constituent and never acts as […]
