Neesa Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Since the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act were initiated in the present case on the basis of documents which we have held above neither belonged to the assessee nor were incriminating in nature, they were not sufficient for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 153C of the Act. The […]
IF car is hired not to perform specific services and charges are not paid on the basis of specific uses but the same is hired for availability of car for particular time or period without specification of particular services and charges paid on fixed basis then such hiring should be considered as rental contract under the provision of section 194I of the Act.
It is clear that the income generated out of earlier release of State Government for its project would have to be converted into State’s equity towards the project and the same cannot be counted as income of BMRCL. Thus, there is no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom has to be utilized only for the purpose of scheme. Thus, it has to be capitalized and cannot be considered as revenue receipts.
Clause (iii) of section 2(14) specifically excludes agricultural land of the description given therein from capital asset which means that agricultural land was outside 8 Km. of municipal limits. Accordingly, agricultural land purchased by assessee was not a capital asset and, therefore, section 56(2) (vii)(b) was not applicable to assessee’s case.
Interest under section 234B and 234C is not leviable since it was not possible for the appellant to anticipate the events that were to take place in the next financial year and pay advance tax on the basis of those anticipated events.
Pradeep Sugamchand Kawadiya Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The short point involved in this case as to whether the penalty is sustainable when the same has been initiated and levied without specifying the alleged guilt committed by the assessee either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Brief facts leading to this […]
Kiran Bala Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the learned AO that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of Rs.31,29,215/- towards sale of jewellery and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act against investment made in construction of house. Assessee was asked to […]
M/s. Akik Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) There is no ambiguity to the fact that the AO is not expected to interfere in the decision making process of the assessee. In the business environment, there are certain decision which are taken by the assessee depending upon the market forces. However, the primary onus […]
Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs National E-Assessment (ITAT Delhi) Facts- Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in distribution and marketing of a range of Adidas and tailor made branded athletic and lifestyle products. Assessee electronically filed its ROI for A.Y 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 67,85,52,440/-. The case was […]
Income surrendered by assessee is nothing but suppression in net sales and is assessable under the head income from business and cannot be treated as deemed income u/s 68 of the Act.
