The form of appeal shall be verified by the person who is authorised to verify the return of income under section 140 of the act as applicable to the assessee. According to the provisions of section 140(c) of the act, the first proviso says that where company is not a resident in India, the return may be verified by a person who holds a valid power of attorney (POA) from such company to do so.
The issue under consideration is regarding applicability of provision of section 43B on the registration fees collected from the customers on sale of the vehicles?
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in disallowing claim of stamp duty and registration charges by considering it as capital expenditure?
Once R&D facility has been recognized by competent authority, then deductions provided u/s 35(2AB) cannot be denied, merely for the reason that approval of expenditure for impugned year in prescribed form has not been received from competent authority.
The assessee company was in the business of Sale and Service of CCTV cameras and other security equipment’s. Total receipts for the year under consideration was Rs. 3,54,30,497/- and still they have not filed return under income tax.
In the given case, the Karta of the HUF, Mr. BM Sarin is more than 70 years old and has closed his business. The notices were sent through emails but the assessee being a senior citizen could not look into those emails.
ITAT Delhi ruling on cash deposit issue. Assessing Section 69A addition to the assessee’s income. Understanding the ITAT judgment and its impact.
DCIT Vs Coal India Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) Section 148 of the Act does not authorize the AO to issue fresh notice when proceedings on a previous notice u/s. 148 of the Act are still pending and have not been finally disposed of. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Commercial Art […]
ITAT states that the assessee has disclosed the sale of shares in its books of account. Once the sale is declared as income by the assessee, the question of treating the same amount as a cash credit u/s 68 of the Act results in double addition. Thus, the addition is also bad on merits. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The issue under consideration is whether Fair Market Value of property determined without giving access to the DVO’s report to Assessee and without considering the Assessee’s objections is justified in law?
