Assessee was entitled to claim long term capital gain exemption under section 54 on sale of property and the same could not be denied on the ground that income tax return was not filed declaring such income.
Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the assessee to penalty under section 271(1)(c)
Recently in the DCIT vs. Compass Group (India) Support Services P. Ltd. ITAT Chennai decided on 12.06.2019, one of the ground taken by Revenue in the appeal was that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in providing relief to the assessee by holding that the appellant was entitled to depreciation on non compete fee as an intangible asset under Section 32( l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred in short as the Act).
Sudip Roy Choudhury Vs JCIT (TDS) (ITAT Kolkata) in the present case, the assessee deducted the TDS and deposited the same. Even there was no failure to submit return in Form 26Q. There was only failure for its timely submission – which by all counts is a technical breach. Further the delay had happened due […]
DIC Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It was a case where on account of the disallowance made by the AO, the loss returned by the assessee stood converted into positive sum and made the appellant eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. We thus find that as per the position […]
Cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000 made on bank/public holidays towards purchase of construction materials in the activity of real estate development could not be subjected to disallowance under section 40A(3) in view of rule 6DD(J).
Where AO was of the view that a shareholder of assessee-company had no means to make the subscription of share capital, AO could have asked the source of investment from the shareholder and if the source was not properly explained, addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder as unexplained income but no addition could be made u/s 68 in the hands of assessee-company since it had discharged the initial onus cast upon it by virtue of provisions of section 68.
Loss on the transactions in castor oil and castor seeds entered between sister concerns could not be allowed to be set-off against business income and LTCG on sale of land as these were speculative transactions as assessee had not obtained the delivery of goods of alleged trading since the purchased item was sold on the same day in the same quantity and also that there was no transportation expenses claimed by assessee.
Shri Harish Chand Narang Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The sum and substance of above decision is that the nature of specification of charge by the A.O. at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings at the time of issue of notice U/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and at the time of […]
Ms. Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The assessee is non-resident and was providing software services to Sandvik Asia Ltd. and also was providing IT support services to the said concern. The question which arises in the present appeal is whether the consideration received by assessee from the payer i.e. Sandvik Asia Pvt. […]
