Akshay Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 12 days for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that after receiving of the order of the ld. CIT (A) on 22.03.2018, assessee has duly handed over the same to his Chartered Accountant, Shri […]
Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Brief of assessee’s facts: 1. Beam India (the assessee), a wholly owned subsidiary of Beam USA, was engaged in the production and sale of alcoholic beverages in India. 2. During AY 2008-09, the assessee entered following ITs with its AE along with outcome […]
Ms Deekay Gears Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, in the course of proceedings before the first appellate authority the assessee had filed letter dated 19thSeptember 2017, seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Taking note of the said letter, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without deciding it on merit. Therefore, the issue which arises […]
Neelam Nananni Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Deduction under section 54 was available on purchase of new flats by assessee from long-term capital gain earned on sale of old asset even if investment was not made out of the proceeds of capital gain. Held: Assessee earned a long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable […]
Since assessee had duly filed revised return within the mandate of section 139(5), therefore, the same could not be treated as non est and claim of depreciation in revised return could not be denied on the ground that it was not claimed in original return and also, assessee was not required to seek condonation of delay in terms of section 119(2)(b).
In the present case, AO noticed investments made by assessee-company and invoked section 14A leading to disallowance whereas assessee claimed that no dividend income earned during the year under consideration. It was held since assessee-company did not have any dividend income and it had strategic investment therefore no disallowance under 14A could be made.
M/s. J.C. Bhalla & Co. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee-firm was entitled to claim deduction claim under Section 54EC as assessee had made an investment in the specified bonds and capital gain had arisen to the assessee from transfer of client relationship and goodwill which was long-term capital asset under section 2(14) chargeable […]
Retiring partners did not acquire any right in the revalued property and what they got on retirement was only money equivalent to enhanced portion of the assets re-valued which did not constitute capital asset under section 2(14) and payment of the said money by assessee-firm to retiring partners could not give rise to capital gain under section 45(4) read with section 2(14).
Since assessee had not transferred any old machinery from the existing unit to new unit and the transactions of purchase of raw material from the existing unit were at arm’s length price, deduction u/s 80IC was allowable as there was no splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence at Noida Unit.
TDS under section 194A was liable to be deducted on amount paid towards interest on loan availed for purchasing a vehicle even when the amount in question was debited from the account of assessee through ECS and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was to be made for non-deduction of tax at source even when nothing remained outstanding at the end of the year as the provisions contained under section 40(a)(ia) did not make any distinction between the amount paid or payable.
