New Pooja Jewellers Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In this case we find that these advances have subsequently been recorded as sales of the assessee firm and that these sales have been accepted as income by the AO during the year. He has not disturbed the sales of the assessee. When a receipt is accounted for […]
Computation of indexed cost of acquisition by the AO, taking the cost of acquisition at the cost price of 15.04.1976 without considering the provisions of section 55(2) clause (b) and taking the base cost inflation index at 406 is bad in law and we direct that Rs. 8,30,000/- must be taken as the cost of acquisition instead of Rs.1,122/-.. So we order accordingly.
Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS u/s 194H and 194J on account of trade offers amounting to INR 834,92,63,976 provided by assessee to its distributors (HCL Info systems Ltd as well as other distributors) was not justified as there was absence of a principal-agent relationship thus, benefit extended to distributors could not be treated as commission under Section 194H and also, AO had not given any reasoning or finding to the extent that there was payment for technical service liable for withholding under Section 194J.
Lucknow Development Authority Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Therefore, at the end ITAT approved to stay the outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier, provided the assessee deposits the above noted amounts within the […]
It is evident that the benefit of first proviso would be allowed only if the condition as stipulated in second proviso is satisfied. In other words, the stamp value on the date of agreement to sell shall be considered as full value of consideration only if the amount of consideration or part of such consideration was received by the assessee through banking channel on or before the date of agreement for transfer. This issue, therefore, needs detailed factual verification.
SPR & RG constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The issue under consideration is whether the reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147 are justified? The reasons recorded for reopening are on the basis of the audited accounts of the assessee i.e., specifically perusal of Schedule 30 of the profit and loss account and […]
The issue under consideration is whether the advance received towards sale of property falls within the meaning of commercial and business purpose and can be treated as deemed dividend without considering the true nature of the transaction?
Where shares are held by an assessee as stock-in-trade, the earning of exempt dividend income on the same would trigger the applicability of Sec. 14A of the Act. Aoordingly shares which were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade were to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A of the Act.
Where assessee was under a bona fide belief about allowability of certain provisions and there was no suppression of facts or deliberate concealment on assessee’s part, mere disallowance by AO due to difference of opinion could not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
It was an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to notice under section 148 on 26-11-2013 and AO on the very same day served notice under section 143(2) upon assessee, whose signatures tally on the said notice without confronting the assessee with the remand report and the evidence produced by the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid and resultantly, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and the same were quashed.
