ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]
Where there was no dividend income earned during the relevant assessment year, there was no case for disallowing the expenditure relatable to dividend income.
E.I. DuPont India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO had taken the month to be the British calendar month as defined in Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act and it is only on that premise, he calculated one day in March and two days in May as two full months and calculated interest […]
The Delhi High Court in case of Bharti Mishra held that section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new property within three years from the date of transfer. However, the Act does not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of house property which may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset.
TDS u/s 194H was not applicable to bank guarantee commission as the same did not fall into clause (i) of Explanation to section 194H and exemption was provided under section 194A(2)(iiia) in respect of any payment made to any banking company to which any Banking Regulation applies.
Payments made to various artists participating in reality show would fall under section 194C and not under section 194J and there was no infirmity in the action of AO as assessee had rightly deducted TDS u/s 194C.
Since the nature of services rendered by non-resident professional showed that none of the services resulted in making available of any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know, how or process, therefore, professional fee paid to non-residents could not be subjected to TDS under section 195.
Section 50C is a deeming provision and Assessing Officer is obliged to compute capital gains by taking valuation arrived at by DVO in place of the actual consideration received by assessee, assessee is entitled to challenge correctness of DVO’s valuation before CIT(A) and ITAT. DVO has to be given an opportunity of hearing
M/s. P.R. Associates Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find that the assessee specifically submitted before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings, which fact has also been captured in the penalty order, that its business was inoperative for the last 7 years and it had already borrowed loans from Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. […]
Assessee sufficiently proved that the loss incurred on premature cancellation of forward contract was a ‘business loss’ inasmuch as the same was incurred in the course of carrying on of the business
