Partners’ remuneration from firm should not be subject to the application of presumptive interest rate under section 44AD as the same could not be construed as gross receipts or turnover of a business independently carried on by a partner.
CIT should not stop merely on finding that the order was erroneous but also had to establish that the order of AO was prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus, revision could not be made in such a case and the order of AO was restored.
Shri Harish M. Kukreja Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The solitary issue involved in the present appeal is towards extent of disallowance permissible under s.14A of the Act. We find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance under s.14A of the Act cannot surpass the quantum of exempt income in […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Asian Food Industries (ITAT Ahmedabad) This is a settled principle of law that the interest income for the purpose of ascertaining ceiling on the basis of book profit, the profit shall be in the profit and loss account. The interest income, thus, cannot be notionally be excluded for the purpose of determining […]
Payment for removal of encumbrances is deductible u/s 48 (1) as expenses incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer. Accordingly, value of flat allotted to Shri Uday should be accordingly reduced from the full value of consideration u/s 48.
Penalty under 271FA was unjustified as there was no requirement to file the AIR in absence of reportable transaction during the financial year and also, department did not make out a case that the assessee had the recorded re portable transactions in the relevant financial year.
M/s. Kanchipuram Vaniga Vaisya-Dharma Paripalana Sangam Vs CIT (E) (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, this application seeking registration u/s.12AA of the Act, was filed on 10.07.2014. The Sub-section 2 of Sec. 12AA stipulates that an order granting or refusing the registration under Clause-B of Sub-Sec.2 shall be passed before the expiry of the six months from the […]
Irrespective of the period to which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act.
Smt. Annakkalanjiam Mathivanan Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(Appeals) have to appreciate the fact that the agricultural products in this country are traded in unorganized sector. The workforce in the agricultural sector is unorganized. When the agricultural products are traded in unorganized sector in the country, expecting the assessee […]
The assessee had not filed the audit report in this case. The assessee was very casual and did not enter appearance for the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty. The assessee has not made out a reasonable cause as mentioned u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for non-furnishing of audit report u/s 44AB of the I.T.Act. Hence, we are of the view that the penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act has been rightly imposed. It is ordered accordingly.
