ACIT Vs Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) It is an undisputed fact that consequent to the CDR scheme, the assessee had written off the receivables from M/s. NTADCL as bad debt and the debt has become bad only due to corporate restructuring scheme. Moreover, in the books of account of M/s. NTADCL […]
Asha Saini Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is not a case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary of the amounts deposited in the bank account. Hand-writing expert report dated 2.12.2017 and copy of FIR available at assessee’s paper book clearly reveals that the hand-writing expert clearly opined that the disputed and […]
Vikram Kalra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is the case of the assessee that the provisions of Section 54F are beneficial in nature and the Courts have always accorded liberal interpretation and a small delay of few days have been condoned for the eligibility purposes. Even otherwise, in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty on […]
Indian Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Brief facts are that the assessee is The Indian Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited. On perusal of the profit and loss account and the computation of income, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has offered net income from business and profession at […]
Provision for obsolete stock be allowed as deduction subject to satisfying himself that valuation is done based on principle that at cost or market price or net realizable value, whichever is less.
ITAT held that non mentioning of relevant limb or non striking off of irrelevant limb in penalty notice is a substantive defect in imitation of proceedings itself and consequent penalty levied on the basis of such defective notice can not be sustained.
AO did not make any addition with regard to URD purchases, which were considered to be bogus or inflation of expenses, in the respective years. Without making addition of alleged bogus/inflated expenses, the A.O. could not disallow depreciation
There is no specific authority who has been designated as being the ‘competent authority’ to measure distance between the land sold and the municipal limits.
The case of the assessee is that the payments were covered under clause (k) of Rule 6DD, which provides that no disallowance will be made where the payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such persons.
Whether any addition can be made and confirmed in the hands of assessee on account of cash deposit of Rs.2,30,000- during demonetization
