Krishnasa Bhute Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that when considering Rule 6DD(e)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and when the payment was made by cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-, it was permissible if the same was paid for purchase of agricultural produces. If there are entries in the books of accounts and payment is […]
Sonal Parekh Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether the addition under section 69C for Bogus purchases are justified in law? In the give case, A.O. has received the information from VAT department that the assessee is dealing with Hawala dealers for some purchases and hence he has re-open the assessment. AO […]
The issue under consideration is whether the conversion of case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny prior to receipt of approval from Pr. CIT is justified in law?
The principle emerging out of this analysis of legal position is that when an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection. Viewed thus, this is beyond doubt that the income in question has actually accrued to the taxable entities on the Netherlands, which, according to the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, is sine qua non for tax treaty protection.
If that is the case, the deduction claimed by the assessee should have been allowed under the correct provision. Merely because the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, by treating the flat as a commercial property, assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act cannot be disallowed if the assessee fulfills the conditions of section 54 of the Act.
Shri N. Ramaswamy Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) A bare reading of Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act shows that the agreement or arrangement which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of immovable property, has to be considered as transfer in relation to capital asset. In this case, there was a perpetual lease agreement […]
The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax wants the Assessing officer to look into various other issues of the assessee which were not covered within the purview of the
If the A.O. has taken up the issue of determining fair market value of the property in question as on 01/4/1981 without converting the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny by taking the prior approval of the competent authority then the said order passed by the A.O. will be nullity as beyond his jurisdiction.
AO has obtained the necessary approval from the Competent Authority for conversion of the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny. Accordingly, the issue which is taken up by the AO in the proceedings under section 154 is illegal and void being beyond his jurisdiction to frame the limited scrutiny assessment.
We are of the view that the company having occupied the property for its own purposes, no notional rent can be added. It may be germane to mention here that this is the only property owned and occupied by the assessee as its registered office. It is not the case of the AO that the assessee company was having some other premises to have its office. A company having been incorporated is legally required to have its registered office irrespective of the fact whether during the year it has carried on any activity or not.
