Loans obtained by assessee were utilized for its business purposes and therefore, interest so paid would constitute business expenditure and accordingly, an allowable deduction.
Dr. BR Ambedkar Jain Kalyan Swayam Sahayata Samiti Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, in course of assessment proceeding the assessee went unrepresented, for whatever may the reason. Therefore, the assessee did not get any opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits made in the bank account with supporting evidence. However, before learned first appellate […]
Jubilant Infrastructure Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The disallowance of depreciation in quantum proceedings in A.Y.2016-17 has also resulted in corresponding enhancement of deduction under section 80IAB by the equal amount. The AO has also allowed the enhanced deduction in the quantum and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the revenue by such claim. It […]
If assessee was under bona fide belief that as per Guidance Note issued by ICAI on ‘tax audit under section 44AB’ net result in derivative transaction was to be considered as turnover and accordingly, he would not be liable to get his books audited as turnover did not exceed more than Rs. 1 crore, penalty levied under section 271B was to be deleted
Revenue could not controvert the fact that there has been frequent deposits and withdrawals by the assessee out of his saving bank account. No evidence is available on record suggesting that the money as withdrawn by the assessee was used for any other purpose.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that when genuineness of the transaction is proved and more than 99% of the payment was received by cheque, capital gain on sale of property should be computed by applying amended proviso to section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act doesnt apply when the property received under a will or by way of inheritance
ITAT Hyderabad held that other than being an agriculturist, the assessee was license holder of retail sale of IMFL. However, the said fact was not verified by CIT(A). Accordingly, held that case has not been properly adjudicated by CIT(A).
ITAT Bangalore held that assessee has paid money for the purpose of investment which is not disputed and therefore the provisions of Section 269ST of the Act is not applicable.
ITAT Bangalore held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act could be made if no exempt income was earned by the assessee.
