DCIT Vs Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy (ITAT Mumbai) Section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in the event of non deduction of tax (TDS) but not for lesser deduction of tax. Hence, this will not be the reason to disallow the expense u/s 40(a)(ia) just because of less deduction since section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked only in […]
AO was not justified in denying the exemption under section 11 on the ground of excessive payment of salary and professional fees to Doctors as the services rendered by doctors who had passed out with the same degree in Cardiology (DM) could not be compared with experience doctor working in the field for the last ten years.
pleader’s gross carelessness affords no ground for condonation of delay; that a legal advisor’s mistake, in order to justify condonation of delay must be a bonafide mistake; that mistaken advice given by a lawyer negligently and without due care is not sufficient cause; that the mistake should be such, which even a skilled legal advisor, well=versed and experienced in law might make that mistake; that, the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay; and that the Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and, it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that wrong advice was given bonafide.
Impugned disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) does not apply in a case involving short deduction of TDS. ITAT therefore go by the very reasoning and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance.
Mumbai ITAT Ruling: Whether reduction in share capital amounts to a transfer and thereby gives rise to capital gains, if consideration is paid for such reduction?
Murlidhar Deendayal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) In respect of undisclosed sales only profit can be added when purchases are recorded but sales is undisclosed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT v/s President Industries (2000) 158 CTR 372 (Guj) (ii) Bansal Rice Mills v/s ITO (2001)72 TTJ 1 (Chd) […]
The ITAT has granted an extension of stay period to IT giants Google India citing a reason for the delay in non-disposal of appeal. In the given case, the assessee has filed the Stay Petition for extension of stay of outstanding demand. However, the revenue has challenged the above stay order passed by the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court.
When a retiring partner took only money towards the value of his share on retirement and when there was no distribution of capital asset/ assets going to the partners, there was no transfer of capital asset and consequently no profits or gains was chargeable u/s. 45 (4).
Neha Chowdhary Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks- It emerges that from a perusal of these case files that although the assessee has produced her documentary evidence before the lower authorities about the impugned sums to be in the nature of income derived from the sales of shares, the fact remains […]
United Tropican Veneers Private Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin) These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty orders were passed subsequent to […]
