ITO Vs P.N. Krishnamurthy (ITAT Bangalore) According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. The scope of the provision is to make service of notice having […]
Payments made by assessee towards toll-free telephone charges is royalty, in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, and is liable to deduct TDS under section 194J of the Act. We therefore are in agreement with the view taken by Ld.CIT (A).
Satern Griha Nirman Pvt. Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Facts of the Case: The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of Builders and Property Developers. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 17.09.2011 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. During the […]
When it was presumed that investment in hundi was bogus in such a situation there was no money available for the investment made by the assessee as such amount surrendered was not available, therefore, this proved that donation was made out of business receipts, which was an allowable expenditure.
AO cannot reject suo-moto disallowance made by assessee under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without recording his satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The issue under consideration is that whether deduction u/s 80-IC will be allowed against service charges since services rendered were part of business and also involved manufacturing activity?
Hence, the order of Assessing Officer was upheld to the extent that the payment of non-compete fee was a capital expenditure and the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act on the said capital expenditure.
In the given case, the assessee is engaged in the trading of iron and steel. A.O. has reopened the assessment on getting information regarding assessee taking accommodation purchase bills.
ITAT held that a retiring partner took only money towards the value of his share on retirement and when there was no distribution of capital assets going to the partners, there was no transfer of capital asset and consequently, no profits or gain was chargeable under Section 45 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The issue under consideration is whether deduction under section 80IAB will be allowed against the income of lease/ rental income from development of SEZ irrespective of wrong classification of head of income.
