The present Misc. Application has been moved by the applicant – assessee pleading that though the Tribunal vide order dated 20.12.2017 had stayed the recovery of the balance amount to be recovered by the Department from the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10,
Mumbai International Airport : Upfront fees paid to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a commercial right entitled to depreciation @ 25% relating to intangible assets
This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the Ld. Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein he has revised the order passed u/s 143(3) by the Assessing officer on 24.02.2015 by exercising his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) on 8thMarch, 2017.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of loss/ expenditure of Rs. 20892603/- suffered/ incurred by the appellant as a result of encashment of bank guarantee furnished to Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) as security for the due and punctual discharge of obligations under the Concession Agreement.
Where amount forfeited by assessee against cancellation of booking of flat was subject-matter of civil suit, it could not be said that there was cessation of liability so as to tax such amount as assessee’s income.
Deduction under section 24(b) and computation of capital gains under section 48 being altogether different provisions, interest paid to bank for acquiring capital asset would be eligible as part of cost of acquisition, even if same had been claimed under section 24(b) while computing income from housing property.
Cromption Greaves Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) This M.A. has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the tribunal in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2013 dated 01-02-2016 . The learned counsel for the assessee pressed only one ground before the Bench that the tribunal order dated 01-02-2016 was passed beyond period of 90 […]
Sunil Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act after a period of […]
ACIT Vs M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) 1. Expenses on replantation without any expansion of plantation area or replantation in an abandoned area are not capital expenditure Capital expenditure involves an investment increasing the capital for higher profit. The expansion means extension of plantation to an additional area. An area already abandoned, […]
There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in course of the assessment proceedings, provided, the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act is available. That being the case, the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be held as invalid.
