Ajay Kumar Gupta (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked section 154 because the assessee wanted to take benefit of the notification issued by the CBDT. In the present case, as per judicial precedents, the HUF itself cannot become a partner in the partnership firm and as […]
Candor Business Solutions P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: Where bonus has been paid to directors for the services rendered and as part of a payment of employment, deduction of the same was to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(ii). Held: AO disallowed amount of bonus to director-shareholders of the assessee company u/s. 36(1)(iii). In the […]
MART Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue in dispute before us in respect of remuneration given to the partners, which has been disallowed in terms of section 185 of the Act, which says that “if a firm does not comply with the provisions of section 184 of the Act for any assessment year, then no […]
M/s. Escorts Cardiac Disease Hospital Society Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessee is not running any hospital towards which this expense has been incurred. The assessee just conducted a seminar for the benefit of its parent body i.e. Escorts Hospital, which is a private company. The expense has been incurred outside India and therefore, it is a […]
M/s. Innoviti Payment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Banglore) (1) The AO can scrutinize the valuation report and the if the AO is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, he has to record the reasons and basis for not accepting the valuation report submitted by the assessee and only thereafter, he can […]
Taking into account the amount mentioned in Form 26AS it could not be said that the assessee had concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was restricted to the tax sought to be evaded on the amount of commission income not disclosed by assessee.
Since assessee along with his mother and siblings entered into a JDA with M/s. S, which was a registered document, therefore, on entering into JDA, there was a ‘transfer’ as per section 2(47) and consequently capital gain was attracted.
DCIT Vs M/s. Ahmedabad Vadodara Express Way Co. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is seen that the assessees have given only permission to the collecting entities to collect the toll fees and maintain the toll plazas by employing a specified category of persons and supervise them and deposit the toll collection in the signatory account of […]
The limited point of dispute is the nature of immovable property which has been purchased by the assessee. The assessee’s contention is that which he has purchased are three plots of agricultural land and the same doesn’t fall in the definition of capital asset as per the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act and provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked.
DCIT Vs Maa Amba Towers Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties supra, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly directed the ld AO to treat the warehouse rentals as income from business and consequentially allow the expenditure claimed in the return as business expenditure. Accordingly, Ground raised by […]
