Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) What is being termed as a guarantee is the obligation of the assessee company, in terms of “agreement for the sale and purchase of entire equity share capital of Virgin Radion Holdings Ltd UK” dated 30thMay 2008, which has led to the actual crystallization of sale […]
Naina Saraf Vs PCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) cannot be applied prior to a A.Y. 2014-15 as section comes into effect from A.Y. 2015-16 The Finance Act, 2013 inserted clause (ii) in S. 56(2)(vii)(b) reading as under: ‘(ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount […]
JCIT Vs Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since assessee has not earned any exempt income and therefore no disallowance is warranted u/s. 14A of the Act. In the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [372 ITR 694] the […]
DCIT Vs Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) We find that there is no dispute that the assessee has received share application money from six companies, out of which, from three companies assessee has received premium for sums aggregating to Rs.103,80,00,000/-. In the case of Ganesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Feelgood Creation Pvt. Ltd., and Beyond […]
Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The solitary ground is directed against the addition of Rs.94,33,788/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Brief facts as noted from the impugned order are that an addition u/s 36(1)(va) has been made by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore on account of delay in depositing the […]
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Upon perusal of assessment order under consideration, it is quite evident that an order was passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. One of the reasons to reopen the case was the allegation of Ld. AO that income from assets given on lease, though […]
DCIT Vs Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of road under BOT contract by Govt. of India have given rise to an intangible asset as defined under explanation 3(b) read with section 32(1)(iii) of the Act, assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at specified […]
In this case CIT(E),held that the trust was a Members’ association and all the activities were limited to its members and not to general public at large so as to fall within the clause “advancement of any other object of general public utility”. He, therefore, refused the registration against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
DCIT Vs Sutham Electric Ltd. (ITAT Pune) The solitary issue in the present case relates to the allowability of the expenditure incurred on development of Tools and Designs which are used in the business and manufacturing of automotive switch gears of Rs.3,75,00,000/- as revenue expenditure. This expenditure was shown as deferred revenue expenditure written off […]
As both the financial statement of Shri. Virendra Tandon (Father) for the Assessment Year 2014-15, as well as his admission in the ‘gift deed’, dated July 21, 2013 along with a mention of the source of the gift transaction in question, that is, accumulated savings of the past, as were filed by the assesse with the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings, therein, clearly sufficed to discharge the primary onus that was cast upon him to prove the ‘nature’ and ‘source’ of the cash credit in his books of accounts. Hence, the ITAT deletes addition of Rupees. 30 Lacs received by Actor Kushal Tandon as a gift from his Father.
