Amount paid as security deposit was taxable only on the year of termination of an agreement between the assessee and the dealer/distributor. Hence AO was not justified in treating the deposit as income each year irrespective of whether the dealership was terminated or not.
Registration under section 12A was allowable to assessee-society as the objects of the society was charitable in nature and activities were genuine; even if the control of the trust property was not vested in the public but was retained by the settlors and moreover, registration with the Registrar of Societies was not a precondition for granting registration u/s 12A.
Provision for leave encashment being in the nature of an ascertained liability was to be reduced while computing the book profit under Section 115JB.
whether AO is correct in disallowing the exemption u/s 54F on the ground that residential flat was not constructed after the date of transfer and they were constructed alongwith saleable flats?
Non-disposal of objections challenging the validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 is not a mere procedural lapse but affects the jurisdiction of AO to pass assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147.
Atul Babubhai Shah Vs JCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: All the expenses incurred by assessee during the temporary lull period were eligible for deduction as the same were necessary to incur or keep its business setup in existence. Held: During assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee for the year under consideration claimed business expenses against NIL business […]
Where return was revised under section 139(5), therefore, the original return filed under section 139(1) would not survive and hence, the claim of loss not made in original return but claimed in revised return had to be allowed.
State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee is a banking institution. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the hands of the assessee in order to verify compliance of TDS provisions. It was noticed that the assessee has provided LTC facility to its employees and some of the employees […]
The issue raised by the assessee that the HUF was not in existence when the assessment proceedings have been conducted and the Assessment Order has been passed on HUF and therefore, the entire proceedings are rendered null and void and it should be held that the Assessment Order is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The sole issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.5,01,00,000/- made by AO u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of bogus share capital including share premium
