It is an admitted position that the alleged expenses incurred by the Assessee were business expenses of the company and therefore no personal benefit accrues to the Assessee as alleged by the authorities below. Hence, this Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked by alleging that Assessee had benefitted.
ACIT Vs Smt. Shobhakaver Surana (ITAT Chennai) It could very well be seen that the assessee is a trading concern. It has maintained category-wise stock details which has been valued at average cost. The assessee is subjected to Tax Audit which contain quantitative details and well valuation of stock under each category. There is no evidence […]
ITAT Bangalore remits Amasebail’s Sec. 80P claim to AO based on delay condonation application. Key considerations for deduction eligibility discussed.
Assessee had given permissive possession and not legal possession, as contemplated within the meaning of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, were not applicable to the impugned Joint Development Agreement and the conditions laid down in section 2(47)(v), could not be invoked, so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2012-2013.
Once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purchase of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself) the Revenue could not justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much was reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Held that as the amount received by the assessee is not in the nature of royalty or FTS, section 44DA of the Income Tax Act will not apply.
Held that assessee incurs monthly recurring charges for telecommunication lines and since such expenditure doesnt bring any benefit of enduring nature the same are revenue in nature.
Pankaj Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) I find that the present appeal is defective for want of payment of proper Court fee and the assessee has not removed the defect despite having given ample opportunities. I therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine on account of appeal being defective. However, it is clarified that if the […]
P.S.K. Engineering –Construction & Co. Vs ADIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT have perused the entire order but could not understand from the order whether opportunity was granted to the assessee before denying the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. The ld.DR could not answer whether opportunity was granted or not. Every quasi-judicial order has to be a […]
ITAT held that no disallowance of expenses can be made in respect of exempt income by invoking the provisions of s. 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D of the Rules while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act.
