The ITAT has granted an extension of stay period to IT giants Google India citing a reason for the delay in non-disposal of appeal. In the given case, the assessee has filed the Stay Petition for extension of stay of outstanding demand. However, the revenue has challenged the above stay order passed by the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court.
ACIT Vs Thirumala Rice Industries (ITAT Bangalore) Sub-section (4) of Section 45 deals with a distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals or otherwise. If in the course of such distribution of capital asset there is a transfer of a capital asset by […]
Service tax collected by assessee and not paid to the Government exchequer before the due date of filing of return was to be disallowed under section 43B and the same should be allowed on actual payment in the assessment year in which it was actually paid.
Sri. Girish V.Yalakkishettar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Section 44AD of the Act gives an option to the assessee to offer income on presumptive basis. These are special provisions. The assessee has opted for the same and offered to tax income at the rate of 8% of his turnover. The issue is whether, the Assessing Officer […]
The assessee is engaged in the business of quarrying, processing/selling exporting of a granite block and slabs.
Disallowance of interest paid to persons who furnished Form 15 G and Form 15 H should not be made u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of TDS as the requirement of filing of Form 15G and 15H with the prescribed authority viz., CIT was only procedural and that could not result in a disallowance u/s 40a(ia).
Shri Rajasugumar Subramani Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) 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 the benefit of section 54F can be given to residential house acquired […]
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of penalty notice u/s 271D is justified under the Act? Penalty u/s 271D shall not be levied in the case of near relatives
The fact that bills were not raised did not stop accrual of income under the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, the claim of assessee which was purely based on AS-9 was not sustainable and the revenue was justified in making the impugned addition.
whether deduction u/s 54 can be denied if assessee initially purchased land with a view to put up construction but later changed his mind and instead, purchased a residential house?
