Mahesh Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that a co-operative bank/ assessee has no liability to deduct TDS on interest payments made to members. We thus delete the impugned section 194A r.w.s. 40 (a)(ia) disallowance of Rs. 2,00,095/- in very terms therefore. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE 1. […]
DCIT Vs Reliance Industrial Holdings Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) In the cases of the reopened assessments first and foremost one has to see the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as these are the reasons which give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer for initiating, and proceedings with, the reassessment. The reasons so recorded must meet […]
Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs DCIT/ACIT/ITO (ITAT Allahabad) In this case assessee has not only replied the notice but also replied to the letter issued by AO. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) on 28th December, 2019. Once the assessee has made the compliance though […]
Super Sales India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Assessee has purchased windmill and capitalized the same in its books of accounts. The assessee purchased this machinery indigenously and hence, provisions of section 43A will not apply. But, since the assessee has capitalized and claimed depreciation in spread over years and assessments have become final and […]
Sikandar And Company Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) AO has to power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from other assessment. Further, there must be reasons recorded showing live link with the formation of the belief that there is escapement of income from assessment. […]
Admittedly, the AO deployed Inspector to verify whether there is any construction/residential house constructed by the assessee. The Inspector submitted report on 19-12-2016 stating that no construction or residential house is existing at House No. 4, Ward No. 12, Ichalkaranji which clearly establishes the assessee could not construct a house within three years from the date of sale of its assets on 17-03-2011 till 19-12-2016. Therefore, the assessee made construction within three years and in my opinion, the AO rightly denied deduction u/s. 54F of the Act.
Ruikar Trust Vs ACIT (CPC) (ITAT Pune) Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act in the return of income. The CPC, Bangalore denied the said exemption for non-filing of Form 10 within time. Having aggrieved, the assessee challenged the […]
ITAT Delhi held that as receipt of an interest subsidy received under the scheme is not income at all and hence the same has to be excluded while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
It is to be presumed that the assessee made investments from its own funds but not from borrowed funds. If that is the case the disallowance under interest is not warranted. Therefore, disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) to an extent of Rs. 1,78,490/- is not maintainable.
ITAT Delhi held that confirmation of addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the income Tax Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules without verification of the valuation report of the Chartered Accountant is unsustainable in law.
