Where assessee-company had advanced interest-free loan to its sister concerns out of interest bearing fund, the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was proper because the loan could not be said to have been given out of commercial expediency, when the two concerns had independent lines of manufacturing and were manufacturing different products.
Ms Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs ITO (OSD) (TDS) (ITAT Bangalore) FACTS – Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. paid cash equivalent of unutilized leave at the time of retirement of their employees, however, they didn’t deducted TDS on the same. As per section 10(10AA), in case of payment towards unutilized leave period, entire payment […]
Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT & Anr. (ITAT Kolkata) Citation: Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT &Anr. (ITAT Kolkata); ITA No.2818/Kol/2013 & ITA No.04/Kol/2014; 27/04/2018; 2006-07 Conclusion: Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure was without application of mind by AO as disallowances of expenses cannot exceed the amount of actual expenses claimed by assessee. Held: In […]
Kalyan Constructions Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Where assessee had not claimed cash payment of Rs. 1.50 crores for purchase of land as business expenditure or treated as stock or capitalized the same in order to claim depreciation in the future, disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be made. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This […]
Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is true that noticed dated 21.11.2011 was for both the A.Ys i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, each A.Y is considered to be a separate unit and, therefore, for each A.Y, the Assessing Officer must bring out his case. A perusal of the said notice, […]
Disallowance under section 43B could not be done in respect of provision for gratuity made for the benefit of the employees for the reason that no actual payment was made.
We do not have any hesitation is holding that when the addition is made solely on the basis of statement the third party and revenue does not have any other evidences, then without granting opportunity of cross examination , such addition cannot be made.
M/s. Johns Biwheelers Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin) In this case, the assessee was required to get his books of account audited and filed along with the return of income u/s. 44AB within the due date of 30/09/2013 for the assessment year 2013-14. However, the audit report was furnished only on 28/03/2014. The contention of the […]
Merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are invoked.
Smt. Roopa Vs ITO (ITAT Bengalore) ITAT held that assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54/54F of the Act in respect of 2 flats in the same residential building complex is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K. G. […]
