ITO vs. Sharda Shree Agriculture & Properties Pvt. Ltd. relating to addition on account of Share Application Money from two Kolkata based companies. Entire Addition was deleted
ACIT vs. Sanjay Kumar Kochar relating to deletion of addition on account of Bogus Purchases & Bogus Sales. Entire Addition was deleted.
Raman Chaudhary Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is evident, the assesse is an agriculturist. For purchasing some agricultural land jointly, the assessee had availed cash loan from other agriculturists. It is a fact on record that the genuineness of the loan availed by the assessee has been accepted by the departmental authorities. Of course, there […]
Payments made for global brand/communication/technology/knowledge cannot be treated as Royalty as per Article 13(3) of India-UK DTAA
Patel Brass Works P. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot) The issue for consideration before us is that if the assessee has not claimed deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in the return of income, can it be permitted to claim the same during the course of assessment proceedings by way of filing a revised […]
Held that penalty u/s 271F leviable as the assessee being a co-operative bank failed to furnish annual information annual information return
AR contends that there were no sales or purchase made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, unexplained other investments and unexplained profit on sale of land to an extent of Rs.15,40,26,567/- is not turnover as the investments and sale of land was in the nature of capital gain but not in the category of business income.
Revenue has sufficient machinery to recover such amount of TDS deducted from the defaulting assessee but this is not the right way for the revenue to collect the tax again or debar genuine refund to the assessee who has already suffered taxation at source.
Held that revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of PCIT cannot be invoked for initiation of penalty proceedings without holding that the assessment order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Held that assessee has no interest in the ownership of the asset but he is in possession of the asset for conducting its business, the litigation expenditure incurred is only to protect his business and, therefore, the same is revenue expenditure.
