Kaushik D. Mistry Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the question of deduction u/s 54 is concerned, we find that the assessee has not acquired the ownership rights in the new property but merely acquired tenancy right which could not be equated with ownership rights. The conditions of Section 54 as well as Section […]
It was held that where the software is purchased across the counter as shrink proof software, then it is not akin to royalty both under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA. The Tribunal held that since the definition of ‘royalty’ has not been amended under DTAA,
Pr. CIT has proceeded to revise the scrutiny assessment order and directing the AO to decide the issue afresh i.e. for making rowing enquiry which is not permissible u/s.263 of the Act.
ITO Vs M/s. Mundela Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) With regard to non granting of deduction u/s. 80P(2) of the Act, treating the unexplained credits as ‘income from other sources’, this issue was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd., 79 taxmann.com/379 ITR 330 wherein ‘the income […]
As there was no whisper about escapement of income, i.e., loss created by misusing client’s code modification, in the reasons for reopening conveyed to the assessee, therefore, no addition in respect of this could be made without making any addition in respect of the item shown to have escaped assessment in the reasons recorded.
Assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company had jumped to an higher amount in no time when the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. Also, assessee failed to provide details of persons who purchased the shares. Clearly, assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction, meant to account for undisclsoed income in the garb of long-term capital gain, therefore, such gain had to be assessed as undisclosed credit under section 68.
Airport Retail P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Payments towards bank charges for credit card payments were not liable for TDS under section 194H as the same was not a commission. Held: Assessee had made payments towards bank charges for credit card payments . AO made the additions as assessee made payment without deduction […]
DCIT (E) Vs Baroda Cricket Association (ITAT Ahmedabad) Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides certain protection in this regard which states that no person can be convicted for any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of action charged an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty […]
Addition under section 68 on basis of information received from investigation wing as to assessee having received share application money from alleged entry operator was not justified as assessee had filed sufficient evidences and details to prove identity and creditworthiness of share application and genuineness of transaction of receipt of share application money
Since AO and wrongly took the date of deposit of self-assessment tax as date of filing of appeal whereas date of self-assessment tax payment had to be treated as the date of removal of defect in the appeal as originally filed, thus, once defect of remittance of self-assessment tax stood removed, CIT(A) was required to adjudicate the appeal on merits as the same was filed within prescribed period of 30 days from the receipt of order of AO.
