Adani Enterprise Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) We notice that no time limit has been prescribed for passing order under s.206C of the Act. The CIT(A) has assumed that in the absence of statutory time limit provided, the provisions of Section 201(3) of the Act providing time limit for deduction of tax at source can […]
Where land was stock in trade in the books of account, but, there was a complete bar on assessee as per the Notification of the Ministry of Defence to raise any construction or to do any business activity therein, the land in question could not not be treated as stock in trade but as a capital asset in nature determining holding period from the date of acquisition.
Payment received by assessee for supply of software products to IBM India Pvt. Limited without giving right to reproduction and commercial exploitation did not fall within the ambit of’ royalty’.
Assessee was not precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction under section 153C, merely because it did not object to the same during assessment proceedings and participating therein, as the issue was purely a legal issue and could be raised at any time in the course of appellate proceedings.
Whether the AO is correct in making addition in the return by considering the income as not from agriculture on the failure of Assessee to prove agriculture activity?
Initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153C in case of other person, i.e., assessee without issuing proper satisfaction note by AO of the searched person in favour of AO having jurisdiction of such other person, the proceedings initiated u/s 153C was void-ab-initio.
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus capital gains from penny stocks was not justified as AO had not conducted any independent and separate enquiry to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic and assessee had successfully discharged the onus cast upon him by provisions of section 68.
ITO Vs M/s Ninja Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee case does not fall under the above category of genuine client code modifications allowed by NSE as we have seen that in large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client […]
Time Media & Entertainment LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In this case there was an unusual and sudden spurt in client code modifications in the month of March 2010 undertaken by Brokers in Stock Exchanges. The assessee had also suffered F&O Loss of Rs.31,98,597.50 through Broker Inventure for transactions undertaken through NSE in the month […]
Hirsh Bracelet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Section 50 of the Act is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets and is applicable only to capital assets forming part of Block of Assets on which depreciation has been allowed under the Act. and also only for the […]
