M/s. MCC PTA India Corp. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Section 35 of Major Ports Act 1963 empowers the Board to execute works providing appliances which includes wharves, quays, docks, stages, jetties, piers and other works within or without the port limits and also moorings and cranes, scales and all other necessary needs and […]
Deepak Sales & Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) There is no dispute between the parties that bonafide nature of transactions alone would not be sufficient to escape the clutches of sec. 271D of the Act. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi (supra), it […]
As the assessee had discharged his onus by substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income was derived, being the savings of his wife, and had paid the due tax thereon, no penalty proceedings could be initiated against assessee.
JCL Infra Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) CGO Complex-I (ITAT Delhi) Severe financial crisis is a reasonable cause which would have prevented the asssessee from depositing the TDS within the prescribed time period. In such a circumstance, we hold that the explanation offered by the assessee would constitute ‘reasonable cause’ within the meaning of section 273B […]
As notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 did not specify particular viz., whether assessee had concealed particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, hence, levy of penalty could not be sustained.
Recently, in the Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & vice-versa [ITA Nos. 299 & 300/VIZ/2017 and ITA Nos. 326 & 327/VIZ/2017, (A.Y.: 2012-13 & 2013-14), decided on 5.9.2018], there were cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue for the AYs 2012-13 & 2013 & 14. In ITA No. 299/VIZ/2007, one of the ground related to the addition of Rs. 26,10,443/- on account of interest on reverse fund.
Interest expenditure could be allowed only if the loan was borrowed for the purpose of the business of the assessee and if it is used for the purchase of an asset which yielded exempted income, that interest expenditure cannot be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Explore Amar Das’ ITAT case. Section 50C, capital gains clarified. Rs. 43,22,878 addition overturned. Get insights on tax implications.
A.O. applied the deeming provisions of Section 50C of the I.T. Act, for the purpose of making the addition. Thus, the A. O. did not bring any positive evidence on record to show that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars.
Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) To decide nature of income received from letting out of property the deciding factor is not ownership of premises but the nature of activity of assessee and nature of operations in relation thereto. As evident from assessees memorandum, objects of the company were to buy, purchase or […]
