Where assessee-society was engaged in activity of finance business and was also engaged in activity of granting loans to general public as well, it could not be termed as co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members, hence assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80P.
Shamim Imtiaz Hingora Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is an undisputed fact that the shares involved are Penny Stocks and the Assessing Officer did not find any mistake in the documentation furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer alleges that the documentation is self-serving. After considering both sides ITAT held that there is need for […]
DCIT Vs Dr. Ravindra Babasaheb Kadam (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that additional income of Rs.1.49 crores was offered by the assessee during the course of survey conducted on 12.01.2012. It is also a fact […]
Addition under section 68 of short term capital loss on sale of shares alleged as bogus on the basis of investigation wing report was not justified as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements, ledger accounts of brokers and payment of STT, etc., and the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by AO in earlier years.
Lovelock & Lewes case: Expenditure incurred by the assessee on payment of software licence fees for applications software for the right to use the software for limited/particular period of time held to be revenue expenditure
Mere execution of power of attorney could not be considered to be transfer of property. For transfer of property, assessee had to enter into an agreement for sale either by himself or through power of attorney agent and also hand over the physical possession of the property as contemplated under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act.
evisional order passed by the Principal Commissioner in case of Anil Kapoor Film Co. Pvt. Ltd was upheld as AO had not made enquiries/verification, to satisfy himself with respect to creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transactions before framing the assessment.
He held that the amount in question thus represented provision for meeting unascertained liabilities which was not allowable as deduction in the case of the assessee. He accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 2,25,01,129/- on account of future development expenses and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2016.
Where services provided by employees of BGIL were merely in the nature of routine support services, the same could not be termed as ‘FTS’ under Article 13 of the India UK DTAA, therefore, there was no requirement for assessee to deduct taxes from such payments in India u/s 195.
Assessee was not entitled to claim of deduction under section 54F as assessee had failed to deposit the unutilized amount of capital gains in the capital gains scheme account by the due date of filing of return of income.
