ACIT Vs Vinay Girish Bajpai (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee claimed that he has complied with all the requirements of claiming exemption/deduction under section 54 of the IT Act. He submitted that assessee has made the payment to the builder within the stipulated time. There was some issue of obtaining the completion certificate by the builder. Hence, […]
During the year under consideration also the assessee could not substantiate with relevant evidences that these expenses were related to loan syndication fees and the same was claimed as Investment Advisory Services without any break up of the detail of loan advances arranged by these two parties.
Centum Electronics Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding the identical issue in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd held that assessment order passed on a nonexistent entity is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. Fact of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the notice […]
Sameer Granites Pvt.Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, the assessee had submitted that the orders passed u/s 200A of the Act were never served on the assessee physically or otherwise. It was stated that intimation u/s 200A downloaded from the office of the Assessing Officer by the Tax Professional, was not communicated […]
In this case, assessee is engaged in manufacturing of automobile components and let out 50% of its factory building on lease and earned rental income. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held the rental income as income under the head house property. Having the rental income held as income under the head house property, the assessee is not eligible for claim of depreciation on the let out portion.
Krishna Prasad Mikkilineni Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case also we have noticed that the assessee has given only permissive possession and not legal possession. Accordingly, following the above said decision of the coordinate bench, we hold that the transfer has not taken place during the year under consideration. Accordingly, capital gain is […]
Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, both the additions, i.e., addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and sec.68 of the Act relate to the share premium amount, i.e., both the additions arise out of common issue only. The assessee has also filed certain additional evidences. We earlier […]
Gogad Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jodhpur) dmittedly and undisputedly, the assessee chose to be un-represented before the NFAC on as many as three occasions. However, the fact does remain that the NFAC did not adjudicate on the merits of the case but dismissed the assessee’s appeal before it on the ground that there […]
Massive Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In this case Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without hearing the assessee and not on merits there is a violation of Natural Justice. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the […]
Assessee having disclosed all particulars of his income from sale of agricultural land, having furnished a bonafide explanation for not returning the same to tax and having surrendered the said income suomoto before detection by the Revenue, assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c.
