Sudarshan Kumar Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) I find the son of the assessee Dr. Sandeep Jain who appeared before the Assessing Officer had categorically stated that whatever amount has been paid towards admission and donation/capitation fee has been paid by him. He and his wife are doctors since 1996 and have sufficient source to […]
To compute disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D AO was directed to consider only those investments which had yielded exempt income during the year.
Sh. Ashwani Khurana Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly assessee had entered into an agreement to sell qua his property bearing no. 56 Golf Links, New Delhi with one Sanjay Pashi after accepting the earnest money of Rs. 4,62,50,000/-, which was subsequently forfeited as the prospective buyer Sanjay Pashi has failed to perform his part of […]
Zaheer Abdulhamid Mulani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The sanctity in terms of natural justice with regard to this proposition is that the assessee under the scheme of welfare legislation which is embedded in the Income Tax Act, 1961 should get an opportunity to prepare himself for the defense as regards to the exact charge on which […]
M/s. Shree Balaji Ventures Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is apparent that the view point bolstered by the authorities that Annual Letting Value in respect of unsold properties lying with the assessee as a stock in trade, should be determined u/s. 23 of the Act, cannot be countenanced in the hue of the later judgments […]
The main plea of assessee was that because of multiplity of proceedings going on before different authorities filing of captioned appeal was delayed. The AR for the assessee had filed before ITAT an events chart of various assessment proceedings / appellate proceedings between the period 28.12.2007 to 21.05.2015, on which date the appeal was filed before the Tribunal.
Shri. B. S. Byregowda (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Income from sale of cocoons cannot be regarded as agricultural income in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Lakshmanan & Co. Vs. CIT (2000) 108 Taxman 167 (SC); wherein it was held that income derived by the assessee […]
Amount advanced by Portescap to Videojet in which assessee was a common shareholder holding substantial shareholding could not be termed as loan falling within the purview of sec. 2(22)(e) as the same was shown in the balance-sheet of Portescap as well as Videojet as inter-corporate deposit (ICD).
India Today Online Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Addition of difference premium amount of Rs. 20/- per share in assessee-company on the ground that M company was a loss-making company was not justified as assessee had substantiated the shares issued at Rs. 30 per share was less than the FMV and the underlying […]
Shri Manoj Dewan Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) We note that though sufficient opportunities were granted by the ld. CIT (A) to the assessees for presenting their cases, however, when the assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not appearing on 20.11.2018 and also filed an application in advance wherein it was stated that the ld. […]
