An appeal can be filed only on the basis of order/intimation, against which the assessee is aggrieved. In the absence of any such document, it will not be possible for any appellate authority to address the grievance of the assessee
Gupta Synthetics Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It was observed that the assessee had entered into a sale deed dated 13/03/2012 with Numech Synthetics P Ltd for sale of land at Dadra in UT Dadra and Nagar Haveli for a sale consideration of Rs.70 lakhs. A registered agreement dated 13/03/2012 was executed. The assessee contends […]
ITAT find that since registration is restored by ITAT, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction U/s. 11 in impugned assessment year
Late Smt. Bhanuben Dhanji Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit proof with regard to cost of improvement claim of Rs.81,775, with supporting bills, date of incurring such expenditure, […]
In our opinion, the assessee is having no explanation with regard to generation of scraps and sale of the same. In our opinion, it is only a make-believe story so as to account the unaccounted cash generation by assessee. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere RBI recognition of debt instrument as additional tier/ capital doesn’t change the nature of perpetual debt instrument. Hence, interest expenses on perpetual bonds, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITAT Bangalore Held that declared additional income offered to tax as business income is sustainable when the only source of income is business income. Hence, the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked to tax the income as ‘deemed income’.
Fee u/s. 234E for filing TDS returns belatedly could not be levied prior to 01/06/2015 as there was no machinery provision of sec. 200A .
Where assessee-firm claimed to have received unsecured loans during relevant years, however, it could not prove genuineness of unsecured loan taken and underneath sources for making these investments, addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 was justified
Where Assessing Officer, after following directions of Principal Commissioner regarding examining of claim made by assessee for exemption under section 54F, passed an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 holding that assessee was eligible for exemption as it held only one residential property during year, subsequent revision order passed by Principal Commissioner setting aside impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue was to be quashed
