DCIT Vs. Babcock Borsig Ltd. & Vice-Versa (ITAT Kolkata) Liabilities brought forward from amalgamating company written off by the amalgamated company (assessee) become its Business income- i.e. Profit chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had written off the liabilities after coming to a conscious conclusion that those […]
Smt. Ranjana R. Deshmukh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, though the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase the new property viz. A-801, Lodha Luxuria on 29.01.2009, but then the possession of the same was delivered to her only as on 18.05.2012. We are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the ld. A.R […]
Nutan Malpani Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We noticed that when the assessee is having a regular business connection with the company and in that process, assessee receives or pays certain advances, they can be considered as ‘trade advances’ and not otherwise. In the given case, certain transactions which were treated by the Assessing Officer as […]
Galgotia Publication (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The present assessee before us is a company and is an entity recognised by law, as a legal person, that exist in eyes of law independently with rights and liabilities. Thus no element of personal expenses by the Directors/Office bearers can be attributed, without, there being sufficient […]
It is not disputed that that the withdrawal of the Circulars No. 23 and 786 has been made on 22-10-2009 vide CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2009 and mere withdrawal of the circular does not negate the principles of income deemed to accrue or arise in India or outside India.
Where claim of deduction had came up with a complete disclosure of all the facts by way of a note to the Computation of Income (COI) filed with assessee’s Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was called for :Novartis India case
Benefit u/s 54 can be availed even if plot was purchased prior to sale of property provided construction of the house property is completed within the time frame provided in Section 54.
Assessee could not be held liable for levy of late filing charges under section 234E for the period prior to June, 2015 in the absence of amendment to section 200A, which was brought on Statute from 1-6-2015.
Arun Kumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The ld AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that these agencies have alleged any stock manipulation against the assessee and or the brokers and or the Company. In absence of any evidences it cannot be said that merely because the stock price moved sharply, the […]
These cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 27-12-2011 and it pertains to AY 2006-07. Since both the appeals pertains to same assessee, for the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
