Devendra Kumar Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) The impugned addition stem from the fact that an amount of Rs.8 Lacs in cash (in old currency notes of denomination of Rs.500 & Rs.1000 as demonetized by government on 08/11/2016) was found from the possession of the assessee on 18/11/2016 at arrival terminal of Maharana Pratap Airport, […]
Smt. Gyatri Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) From the record, we also noticed that the A.O. has not stated either in the assessment order or in the ordersheets of the assessment proceedings that any notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. It is clear that there is no notice U/s 143(2) […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Mayo College General Council (ITAT Jodhpur) The deduction of depreciation for Rs.300.37 Lacs as claimed by the assessee was denied by Ld. AO on the reasoning that cost of fixed asset is an application of income and therefore further deduction of depreciation tantamount to double deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed depreciation by […]
Sonali Hemant Bhavsar Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We observe from the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act for limited scrutiny dated 19.09.2016 and find merits in the contentions of the assessee that the said limited scrutiny can not be expanded unless the AO converted it into complete scrutiny with the approval of Ld. […]
R. & H. Property Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Pr. CIT had held the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 10.10.2016 as erroneous, in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, for the reason, that he had failed to carry out proper investigation as regards the […]
ITAT Mumbai verdict on Amarchand & Mangaldas vs ACIT. Disputed tax credit under Indo-Japanese tax treaty. Details of the case and judgment.
DCIT Vs Morarjee Realities Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ‘Capital Asset’ as defined in Sec.2(14) would mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession’, except those which are specifically excluded in the said section. The only exclusion is only for stock in trade, consumables or raw materials […]
ACIT Vs Fortis Hospitals Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Non compete fee did not confer any exclusive right to carry-on the primary business activity. The right is restricted only to the particular party or individual and does not have the exclusivity over the rest of the world. Thus, non-compete fee cannot be termed as intangible asset. The […]
Merely because tax at source has been deducted by the builder, the receipt of mobilization money cannot be deemed as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. We, therefore, do not find any error in the decision reached by the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition on this count. Finding no merit in this ground raised by the revenue, the same stands rejected.
Admach Auto Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Disposal Of Objection To Reasons In Assessment Order Itself Without Separate Speaking Order Makes Entire Reassessment Invalid We have also gone through the objections dated 27.12.2016 filed by the assessee before the AO in which the assessee has specifically objected the initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 of the […]
