Amended 80A (5) could not be read as a stipulation barring and restricting the assessee from revising the computation/claim for deduction made in accordance with Section 80A (5).
Bogus Capital gains- Order is against the principle of natural justice in as much as the order has been passed taking the statement of person as base, the copy of which is not made available to the assessee. Further, opportunity to cross examine the concerned person was also not provided to the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether under block of assets, the depreciation allowed even for those assets which have not been used during the year under consideration?
Income earned corresponding to the expenditure alleged to be bogus is not question and hence the entire expenditure incurred which is duly supported by the income cannot be disallowed. Genuineness of the transaction has been proved by the documentary evidence. Addition restricted to the difference in the gross profit declared as compared to the average gross profit rate of earlier five years.
M/s. EPE Process Filters & Accumulators Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee’s submissions in support of its claim u/s 37 of the Act are that it has purchased the IPL cricket match tickets to distribute them amongst its long standing customers to garner their goodwill and improve its business relations and therefore, it is […]
Learned DR submitted that the AO has failed to examine the claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings as required by the law. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the revision order passed by the learned CIT does not call for any interference.
Transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts, statutory returns are duly filed with regard to allotment of shares. Documentary evidence proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is provided. Addition under section 68 not possible.
Shri Rama Jogi Reddy Sanepalli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Ratnakanta B. Agarwal v. ITO, ITA 587/PUN/2014, order dated 24.07.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Pune Bench took the view that if the variance between the value estimated as fair market value by the DVO and the value adopted by the […]
Ms Inderpuri Express Couriers Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The AO has made protective addition in the hands of the assessee towards estimated commission income derived from hawala transactions on the ground that certain incriminating materials were found in the premises of the assessee and further, one of the employees has stated that the […]
Partnership firm can own assets only in the name of the partners. In the case of the assessee firm, the car is owned in the name of the partner of the firm. If the car is purchased from the resource of the firm or the purchase consideration is credited to the partner’s current account or capital account then it shall be construed that the firm is the owner of the car.
