ITAT Chandigarh held that Ld. NFAC ignoring the submissions and the documents being sought to be filed as additional evidences and dismissal of assessees appeal without even commenting on the submissions or the documents is patently and legally wrong.
Dy.C.I.T Vs Ashok Developers & Builders Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad) It is an admitted fact that a search & seizure operation took place in the premises of the assessee on 18.02.2016 and certain incriminating documents were found and seized. We find the AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act determined the […]
AO had wrong assumption of facts and by applying incorrect law without due application of mind allowed claim of interest paid on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b). Therefore, in our opinion, PCIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction
AO cannot scrutinise Income Tax return without issuing section 143(2) notice and order without such notice suffers from patent irregularity and it cannot be made a foundation for subsequent proceedings either 263 or any other proceeding.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per Accounting Standard 11 premium on forward exchange contracts is to be amortized as expense means writing it off as revenue expenditure in the profit and loss account.
In present facts of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,31,000/- by the AO, while considering the fact that the family members of the assessee were earning (but were below taxable limits), and the deposits made were from the past savings and earnings of the entire family which were pooled together.
ITAT Chennai held that as per Sec.9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India. Hence, salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India.
ITAT Bangalore held that Share Application Money should not be included in the value of investments. Accordingly, for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the Share Application Money should be excluded.
Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Deduction is allowable when interest is derived from credit provided to its members by co-operative credit societies
ITO Vs Shri Ramesh Kumar (HUF) (ITAT Bangalore) It should be kept in mind that the Hindu Law does not recognize a joint Hindu family or coparcenery as a juristic personality capable of holding property and as an entity separate from the members of the family. The true position in law is that all the […]
