ITAT Mumbai held that the deeming fiction of section 50C Income Tax Act cannot be extended while working out the written down value (WDV) for the purpose of claiming deprecation on the block of the asset. Thus, disallowance made is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned the delay of 611 days in filing of an appeal considering the fact that the assessee is a layperson with limited familiarity with the intricacies of the e-portal system.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of short term capital loss not justified since there is no evidence on record based on which genuineness of transactions can be doubted. Hence, held that conclusion drawn by AO is wholly irrational and unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for lower deduction of TDS not justified since the lower deduction in earlier months were due to bonafide reasons and the same was adjusted in later months.
Thus all the provisions relied upon by the Ld. AO would apply only in a case where an “asset” is “transferred” in the course of “amalgamation” by “transferor company” to the “transferee company” and would not apply when a particular “asset” is a “result” of amalgamation.
PCIT was of the view that mere process of compression of natural gas cannot be considered to be a manufacturing activity for the purpose of claim of additional depreciation.
ITAT Delhi held that protective addition in the hands of assessee deleted as substantial addition already made in the hands of the assessee’s wife and tax is already paid on the same. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts for the purpose of calculation of ‘gross receipts’ under the presumptive taxation as per section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that merely because particular scrip is identified as penny stock it doesn’t mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. Addition, u/s. 68 deleted in absence of allegation of assessee being involved in any price rigging or price increase.
Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO held that kaccha arahtias are concerned, the turnover does not include the sales effected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purpose of 44AB.
