We noted that the turnover has increased more than double and consequently expenses have increased little more than doubt on both counts i.e., salary as well as EB charges. We noted that the AO has made estimated disallowance on the basis that the assessee has not furnished any separate documents like details of staff or details of electricity bills.
Poonawalla Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The only issue pressed is about restricting the addition under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by considering only such investments which yielded tax free dividend income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the […]
The only fault of the assessee was of claiming Tax deducted at source wrongly. The learned Assessing Officer should have refused the credit of such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied.
Merely reproducing the conclusions of investigation report in his own words is indeed borrowed satisfaction as contended by counsel for the assessee. Consequently, the Bench is inclined to decide these grounds of cross objection in favour of the assessee.
ACIT Vs Bharat Carriers ltd (ITAT Cuttack) Under sub-item 2(ii) of Item III of Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, higher rate of depreciation is admissible on motor trucks used in a business of running them on hire. Therefore, the user of the same in the business of transportation of the assessee is […]
Bhikhabhai Ambalal Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. AR submitted that mere existence of addition during the assessment proceedings does not attract provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, the CIT(A) has not pointed out as to on what basis the penalty was imposed. In fact, notice under Section 274 read […]
Swaraj Builders Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) Assessee had failed to comply with the mandate of law and had failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194A of the Act on the aforesaid amount of interest payment of Rs.7,46,025/-. Accordingly, the A.O had disallowed the amount of Rs.7,46,025/-u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which was thereafter, upheld by the […]
Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Centralised Processing Centre (ITAT Mumbai) The facts in the present case shows that form number 3CD where the statement of particulars required to be furnished u/s 44AB of the income tax act 1961 are prepared by the assessee and is not an audit report. Form number 3CA is […]
As section 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land.
Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]
