Royal Western India Turf Club Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the original assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 06-02-2014. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26-03-2018. The […]
Where assessee claimed depreciation on new server, storage and accessories procured during the year on lease and the assessee incurred cost of such asset and was also paying interest on lease; the assessee would be eligible to claim such depreciation.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as mere making of a claim which was not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee.
In the services rendered by the non-resident of procuring export order for the assessee, no knowledge has been provided to the assessee which could be exploited further by the assessee. In such circumstances, the services rendered by the non-resident cannot be held as ‘FTS’ under the India-France DTAA.
Giving advance to the employees as well as vendors were essential and wholly and exclusively linked to the business of the assessee. Since AO had not examined the claim of deduction u/s 37(1) r.w.s. 28, it was deemed appropriate to restore the issue to the files of AO for de novo consideration.
A transaction needs to be proved to be genuine by the person who substantially asserts the same. Once the assessee has been called upon to prove the genuineness of the trading of the shares leading to LTCG gain, the onus lies upon him which he fails to discharge in the present matter.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO was not certain that for which limb he wanted to initiate penalty proceedings, that is, for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. AO initiated penalty proceedings on one footing and concluded on other footing, therefore, the basis of levy of penalty itself was not correct.
DCIT Vs Janki Hitendrakumar Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) CIT(A) has rightly concluded that the agricultural land parcels being situated in the rural area is outside the purview of expression ‘capital asset’ defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. Consequently, the rural agricultural land in question not being a capital asset is not susceptible to tax under […]
Navrathan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Bangalore) Explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless the legislature specifically says so. In […]
Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Whether It Is Necessary To Start Construction of New House After The Date of Sale of Original Assets For Claiming Exemption Under Section 54F Held that : Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be liberally interpreted. An assessee who has purchased a house property is entitled […]
