Shri Rameshchandra Chhabildas Vs JCIT (ITAT Surat) n the present case, the assessee has converted his stock-in trade in to capital asset and sold out the said asset after its conversion, the gains arising therefrom is therefore, required to be taxed as long-term capital gain and not as business income as held by the AO. Since […]
DCIT Vs. Rahul Rajnikant Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) We note that at the time of opening of the bank account in Geneva, the assessee was a US citizen and resident and he was holding a US passport. Still the assessee chose to open the account in HSBC bank account in Geneva by using the address and proof thereof […]
DCIT Vs Dipendu Bapalal Shah (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case undisputedly the assessee is a non-resident since 1979, as per the provisions of Section 6 of the IT Act. The scope of income in case of a non-resident is defined under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act. As per […]
ITO Vs. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) In the case on hand before us it is an undisputed fact that both assessees have treated the unsold flats as stock in trade in the books of account and the flats sold by them were assessed under the head ‘income from business’. Thus, respectfully following the above […]
Klaus Multiparking System Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) As per bills raised by ‘S’ assessee had merely reimbursed octroi charges in addition to payment of transportation charges to said ‘S’. It was not requirement of law to deduct tax at source out of reimbursement of expenses, therefore, assessee could not be held to be […]
Swift Knit Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Only arguments raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee is that, it was an inadvertent and bona fide mistake while filing the return. Question before us is, how such mistake was committed and how it could be termed as an inadvertent or bona fide mistake. In the case […]
ACIT Vs Sanjay Passi (ITAT Delhi) We are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that AO has wrongly made the addition u/s. 2(22)(e) by holding that there are accumulated profits in the hands of M/s Robin Software Pvt. Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) has also noticed that the AO has completed the assessment […]
Installation of set-top box amounted to works contract and no technical expertise was required so as to make the assessee liable to deduct tax under section 194J.
Finding of AO is based merely on suspicion and surmises without any tangible material to show that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted income in the share of long term capital gain even otherwise the reliance of the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice
Vogue Vestures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) This issue was now covered by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Mark Auto Industries Ltd (2013) 358 ITR 43 (P&H). wherein the High court held that in absence of any requirements in law for making deduction of […]
