JCIT(OSD), (Exemptions) Vs Patiala Improvement Trust (ITAT Chandigarh) The AO noticed that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration the assessee carried on the business of sale and purchase of residential plots and commercial properties and earned huge net profit of Rs. 9,95,74,223/-, which does not fall within the ambit of the […]
Girraj Prasad Gilara HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) The revenue has not disputed that the assessee has raised the objections vide letter dated 19th July, 2016 against the notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act. Assessee has raised the objections against the reopening of the assessment on the ground that there is no […]
Shin-Etsu Polymers India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) We have observed that the authorities below have commented while disallowing these foreign exchange losses on conversion of outstanding balance in foreign currency into Indian rupee on the date of Balance Sheet as at year end to be on account of outstanding unsecured loans which were […]
The issue under consideration is whether the sum of admission fees paid to stock exchange will be allowed as capital expenditure? In light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Techno Shares and Stocks Limited (supra) membership of stock exchange is to be treated as a capital asset.
DCIT Vs Ocwen Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(ITAT Bangalore) Facts- 1. Treatment of expenditure incurred on buy-back of shares- An assessee has spent amount of INR 8,90,961 on buy-back of shares and debited the same to Profit & Loss Account treating the same as ‘revenue expenditure’. AO treated the same as ‘capital expenditure’. 2. Set-off of […]
The issue under consideration is whether the stay of demand will be granted for the 2nd time to the assessee or not?
Disallowance made by AO under section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on discount/rebate allowed to dealers/distributors on sale of products was not justified as there was no element of work as defined under clause (iv) of Explanation to section 194C and AO had not brought on record any material for deduction of TDS under section 194H that the dealers/distributors were simply acting as intermediaries to facilitate sale of products to end users so as to infer a principal–agent relationship.
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty u/s 271C levied due to failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) on LTA paid to employee is justified in law?
Shri Rama Chandra Reddy Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) In this case GPA was given by three persons i.e. (i) Shri K. Pratap Reddy, Sri K. Madhav Reddy and Shri K. Dharma Reddy in favour of the assessee in the year 1990 and it is mentioned therein that the possession of the said land was also […]
Wipro Limited Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) Claim of depreciation on software- Depreciation claimed by the assessee on the amount of software capitalized was disallowed invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. Held, depreciation is a statutory allowance and hence it cannot be considered as expenditure. Accordingly, disallowance of depreciation cannot […]
