ITAT Ahmedabad held that exercising revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for not dealing with alternative claim and claiming the order of AO as prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not sustainable as anyhow deduction was available to the assessee.
Where assessee did not raised claim for deduction under section 54B while filing the returns of income filed u/s 139(1) and u/s 148 but in appellate proceedings raised the same then such claim was allowable.
Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT/DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is noted from the record that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Hotel Industries and Toll Tax Collection. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee company had debited the interest expenses amounting to Rs. 4,23,15,400/-. During the […]
Merely granting of stay does not mean that prosecution launched by Department has come to an end and appeal cannot be dismissed on account of low tax effect,
Surinder Kumar Malhotra Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The relevant facts of the case are that qua the Long Term Capital Gain available to the assessee in the year under consideration deduction u/s 54 of the Act was claimed. The said claim was disallowed holding that the proceeds have been applied to acquiring two separate properties. […]
ITAT Mumbai held that freight charges received from transportation of cargo through feeder vessels being part of shipping income in International Traffic is covered under Article–9(1) of the India–France Tax Treaty and hence not taxable in India.
ITAT Kolkata held that interest on income tax refund is a ‘debt claim’ payable by the Revenue in terms of Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Italy Treaty and thus such interest is not taxable and no TDS ought to be done by the AO.
ITAT Pune held that addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act sustainable as assessee failed to prove that the developer had agreed to share its developed area; which in turn, had come to the assessee from his father by way of nomination.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as the additional evidence produced clearly indicates that company has put to use the windmill turbine in the year, depreciation on the same is available.
ITAT Kolkata held that service tax collected by the assessee on the amount paid to it for rendering the services is not to be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of computing the presumptive income of the assessee u/s. 44BBA of the Income Tax Act.
