Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) Admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’s contribution to ESI and PF which have been collected by the assessee from its employees have thus been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Till this provision is enacted in as the […]
Trading of currency derivatives are covered by definition of ‘derivatives’ and excluded from the ambits of speculative transactions defined under Section 43(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
ACIT Vs Rinder India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) We note that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of automobiles signaling lights and other electrical items. The assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.2,56,73,220/- and the AO determined the same at Rs.4,31,12,090/- inter alia making disallowance of […]
Assessee claimed that recipient has included the receipts in their return of income in regard to these expenses on which assessee has not deducted TDS
HP Ex Servicemen Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Issue– Ld. CIT(A) not granted the credit of TDS of Rs. 1,90,76,546/- (duly reflected in Form no. 26AS) by stating that the assessee had not offered the freight receipts as income for the relevant year under consideration ignoring the fact that the assessee had shown the net […]
The assessee was required to prove identity of creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditors. The assessee grossly failed to do so. Therefore, in the absence of the supporting evidences regarding claim of unsecured loans, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of authorities below.
ITO Vs Laxmipat Surana (ITAT Kolkata) The revenue’s grievance is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 43B of the Act for unpaid bank interest on secured loans of Rs. 3,55,54,116/-. We find that so far as amount of bank interest payable on the secured loans is concerned, there is no […]
Total estimated construction cost the percentage of the completion works out to 24.89% which is less than the 25%, being the limit prescribed for recognition of Revenue.
Additions under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, without bringing anything on record to suggest that interest-bearing funds were actually utilised for the purpose of advancing funds on which no interest was charged by the assessee, is unsustainable in law.
AO failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under section 50C(2), held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO in adopting deemed sale consideration in violation of section 50C(2) of the Act. Actual sale consideration adopted for LTCG
