Binod Kumar Mahato Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The reasons for scrutiny selection through CASS, is to examine the cash deposits in savings bank account, as these are more than the turnover. The Assessing Officer stuck to these reasons and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee carried the […]
Huawei Telecommunications (India) Pvt. Ltd.Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The taxpayer challenged disallowance/confirmation of Rs.1,010,856,249/- & Rs.128,611,894/- for Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively on account of provision for customer claim on the ground that the amount provided by the taxpayer pertaining to actual delays/defaults occurred as per the terms of the contract entered between the […]
AO, accordingly, took the view that each of the unit is separate house. Since deduction u/s 54F of the Act is not permitted, if the assessee is having more than one house property, the AO rejected the claim for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
During the course of assessments the Assessing Officer found that the assessee claimed expenseunder the head ‘Assistance to Law Students’, and when asked, submitted that the assistance paid to law students Diksha Sharma and Krishna Prasad K. V. at Oxford is the justification for such claim.
Shri Praveen Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) As per facts of the present case, the assessee was student and studying for said period in Birla Institute of Technology as a regular student of M.Sc. Animation and Design and was tenant of Shri Abhishek Agarwal, who was into business of real estate in name and style […]
It is necessary to bring on record, to be taken care of by the CBDT, that present appeal has been filed just to generate unnecessary litigation without examining well-reasoned findings returned by the ld. CIT (A) which can be curtailed if proper scrutiny/vetting by the senior officers, who are at the helms of the affairs, is made before approving any case for filing appeal before a higher forum.
Addition of sum paid to Tata Sons Limited towards subscription paid for Brand Equity and Business Promotion Agreement was not justified as the said payment was made annually on a recurring basis for business purpose and the same was allowable as a revenue expense.
Luxe Trading And Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) From a perusal of the reasons, it is seen that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued mechanically without application of mind and the satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is only the borrowed satisfaction of the Investigation Wing. The Assessing Officer, […]
Bapujibuwa Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit VS JCIT (ITAT Pune) The expression ‘reasonable cause’ has to be considered pragmatically and if the facts of the present case are examined keeping this legislative spirit in mind, we find that there were enough circumstances to show that the assessee company had acquired bona-fide belief that its activities […]
Karan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has explained that Rs.92,54,462 is out of previous withdrawals and sale of garments and pleaded that it is to be excluded from the taxation. The assessee has not furnished any evidence to establish the nexus between the earlier withdrawals and deposits into various bank accounts. In such […]
