Shri Mukesh Choksi Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It was submitted that the case of the assessee was akin to the share brokers and therefore only the commission should be considered as receipts of the assessee and not the purchase/ sale value of shares. In our view the claim had been rightly rejected by the CIT(A). […]
Prestige Estates Projects Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) It is seen that the amounts received by the appellants in respect of 3 activities undertaken by them i.e. ‘assignment transfer income’, assessment and bifurcation fees, ‘Khata transfer fees’ and ‘forfeiture’ amounts find their origin in the agreement with prospect to buyers in […]
DCIT Vs Star Wire Ind. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer himself has recorded the statement of Shri Mohinder Kumar Gupta in the assessment order, wherein the Director of the Company has elaborated the transaction which was also confirmed by Mr. Kailash Chandra Agarwal. The assessee Company through its […]
DCIT Vs Moni Kumar Subba (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, the AO added notional interest on the interest free security for arriving at annual letting value. Since that was not permissible, the effect would be that such assessment was rightly set aside by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. Therefore, the orders would not […]
Assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the Act in respect of the interest income earned on FDRs made for the purposes of keeping margin money or for availing any other credit facility from banks.
Vague information given by DIT (inv) there is no other material the AO collected after preliminary enquiry which could have enabled him at the time of recording reasons to come to a conscious independent conclusion that income of the assessee has escaped assessment.
There was no new tangible material evidence brought on record by AO. Assessment was reopened only on the basis of details available on record and wrongly interpreted by AO.
Since the bank account in which assessee made huge cash deposits found during the course of search was not declared by assessee and assessee had not filed return for the year under consideration, therefore, the same constituted seized material so as to invoke section 153C in assessee’s case.
Travelling expenses incurred on seminar conducted in abroad by assessee-company with the financial aid of the pharmaceuticals company was justified as the same did not give any scope to treat the same for the purpose other than the business of assessee-company so far it related to the medical practitioners.
Jayashree Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Sec. 50C(2) enables the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer. Whenever a reference is made by the AO to the Valuation Officer, such reference has to be construed as a reference made under sec. 16A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. We have also carefully gone through […]
