Smt. Lakshmi Swarupa Vs ITO (ITAT Banglore) In the present case, the clause in the JDA regarding possession clearly states that what is given is not possession contemplated u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and that it is merely a license to enter the property for the purpose of carrying out development. Further, […]
Conclusion: Receipt of agency commission, travel by directors to explore possibilities of getting business and taking premises on lease for the purpose of manufacturing activity was sufficient to conclude that business of assessee had been set up during the relevant previous year, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim deduction of all the expenses under section 37.
She has also tried to demonstrate that at the time of JDA, the land which was part of the stock-in-trade was contributed under JDA for the construction of residential apartments. Therefore, the profit earned on sale of flat would be a business profit.
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 […]
Expenditure for expansion of existing business in terms of new beds and services and aid in raising equity funds approximately 100 crores from interested investors to finance its expansion plan is certainly a revenue expenditure and be allowed as deduction under section 37 of the Act.
M/s. Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (ITAT Bangalore) We find that TPO has already taken the total 10 comparables and with respect to 8 comparables, assessee has no objections. With respect to Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd., we have carefully perused its financial statements and we find the main revenue is from different […]
ITO Vs Arshia Basith (ITAT Bangalore) we find that the assessment year in this appeal is 2014-15 and the provision in section 54F comes w.e.f. 01.04.2015 according to which it was clarified that the residential house is to be acquired only in India meaning thereby before this amendment it was not clear as to whether […]
ITAT opined that the assessee derived advantage by deferring its income to the extent of excess warranty provision to subsequent years. Therefore, such excess provision cannot be allowed as a deduction as it cannot be said to be reliable.
DCIT Vs M/s. Prestige Garden Estates Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: Deduction was allowable under section 36(1)(iii) on interest on borrowing to pay earnest money deposits (EMD) to purchase properties being lands, flats, etc. as the same was for purpose of assessee’s business of acquiring properties. Held: In the present case, assessee-company was engaged mainly […]
As far as the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the question whether if under a JDA multiple flats are given to the owner whether deduction u/s.54F of the Act can be given, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the other decision cited before us supports the plea of the […]
