DCIT Vs Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Assessee was entitled for deduction u/s. 54F on the capital gains arising on the sale of depreciable assets being commercial flats computed in the manner laid down in Section 50 read with Section 48, 49 and 45 and section 50 was a deemed provision, therefore, its […]
ITO Vs Sri. Harimurali Sreedhara Panickar (ITAT Cochin) In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, the only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land […]
On going through the language of the Explanation 10, it is manifest that it is attracted only when the object of the Scheme is to subsidize the cost of an asset and not otherwise. If the object of the Scheme is to accelerate the industrial development of the State, then the case is not caught within the mandate of the Explanation 10.
ITO Vs Kuber Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) There is no dispute that the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee in respect of assessment years, beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years as contemplated under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 151 of the […]
ITO Vs S. M. Batha Education Trust (ITAT Pune) In the absence of pending return of income, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act is clear that notice can be issued only when a valid return is pending for assessment. Reassessment proceedings is invalid if notice U/sec.143(2) is issued prior to filing of return […]
Merely because assessee’s had claimed administrative expenditure which was not acceptable to Revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if there was absence of concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Amount paid to a partner upon retirement after taking accounts and upon deduction of liabilities did not involve an element of transfer within meaning of section 2(47) and not chargeable to income tax.
High Court faulted the Tribunal’s decision of reducing the penalty as a ‘way to bypass the minimum limit’ and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision
DCIT Vs. M/s. Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) it is duly noted that the assessee has submitted that the outstanding bonus was customary bonus and not filing u/s. 36(1)(ii) to come under the ambit of disallowance u/s. 43B(C). The assessee has quoted several case laws for the proposition that the customary bonus do not […]
Shilpa Shetty Kundra Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is observed that the assessee has already offered suo-moto disallowance of Rs.2.34 Lacs u/s 14A in her computation of income, which has been overlooked by the lower authorities. Another undisputed fact that emerges is that disallowance against average investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the […]
