Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty.
Foreign travelling expenditure incurred by law firm for the pleasure tour by the counsels and their family members was not in relation to any business activity of assessee-firm, therefore, the same was not allowable
Navas M. Meeran Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) Conclusion: Lease rent received by assessee by letting out the industrial undertaking was not having any direct connection with the manufacture or production of an article or thing by assessee and the same could not be considered as business income eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB. Held: Assessee had […]
Addition under section 68 on mere reason of non-production of directors in the person of shareholder companies was not justified and AO had not brought any cogent material on records in assessment order to demolish the copious evidences furnished by assessee.
When income which was the foundation on which he based his belief of escapement of income was absent /disappeared then AO’s very usurpation of jurisdiction was on non-existing jurisdictional fact which rendered his usurpation of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment legally untenable and so null in the eyes of law and therefore, the reassessment made by AO without jurisdiction was quashed.
Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 54F in respect of the investment made by assessee in purchasing the capital asset (land) as the said purchase of land was not within a period of one year prior to the sale of capital asset or falling in any of the categories in which assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s.54F.
Though vehicles were registered in the name of directors of company, beneficial ownership vested with assessee since payment was made for the purchase of vehicles by the assessee. Thus, assessee was duly entitled for depreciation thereon, especially when assessee had claimed other expenses in connection with vehicle and non-disallowance thereof proved use of vehicles for assessee’s business purpose.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as assessee had proved that there was a reasonable cause for making the wrong claim under section 54 instead of section 54F.
ITAT held that roaming charges paid by the appellant to other telecom companies are not covered under ‘fee for technical service’ and such payments are out of the purview of TDS provision of 194J of the Act.
In absence of registered sale deed, the house boat purchased cannot be said as residential house and hence deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed. Further The same cannot be equated with the residential house which is immovable property and hence deduction u/s 54 not allowed.
