Rakesh Garg Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) As per the details of the three properties in which the assessee has claimed to have invested sale consideration of the land in question, only one property i.e. at sl. no. 1 of the list reproduced in para ‘6’ above is a constructed house and two others are only […]
Atos Information Technology Singapore Pte Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Facts- The assessee is incorporated in Singapore and is also a tax resident of that country. As stated by the AO, during the year under consideration the assessee had provided certain services to its group concern in India, viz. Atos India Pvt Ltd (Atos India) […]
When a commodity acquired a distinct name, use and commercial identity, it would acquire the trait of ‘manufacture’. Therefore, the activity of conversion of natural gas to compressed natural gas was entitled to avail additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia).
Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Surat) Facts- The Assessee Company being an investment company had received shares from its Promoters as a gift. The AO dismissed this claim stating that it was purchased by the assessee company at a discount from the said Promoters and that consideration was involved. Hence, AO disallowed the […]
Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant (BCCI) has preferred an appeal against three show-cause notices issued by the department alleging that the tax exemption that the appellant is enjoying under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act should not be revoked for generating income through the IPL. […]
Shaheen Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Allahabad) Facts- The main sources of income of the assessee were from interest on FDRs, interest on saving bank account and interest income of his minor son and daughter. ROI of the assessee was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1) of the Act, and later on the case of the assessee […]
Shujaat Ali Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Facts- Case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessment U/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 was completed after making addition of Rs. 7,71,826/- being alleged undisclosed short-term capital gain on alleged sale of immovable property after invoking Section 50C of the Act. […]
It is a settled position of law that if notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
Since excess amount paid over and above the net asset value on acquiring a business concern should constitute goodwill however, eligibility of assessee to claim depreciation on Goodwill to AO was restored after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.
Held that explanation 5 to section 43B has prospective effect. Hence, learned NFAC is not justified in disallowing the belated remittance of employees contribution to PF/ESI but paid within the due date of filing the return of income under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act.
