M/s. Incap Manufacturing Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The sole disputed issue raised by the assessee in respect of granting of depreciation on Customer Relationship Rights which is in the nature of non-compete fee. We found that the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal based on the findings of the AO. has observed that […]
Shri Ramakrishna Aswatgh Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, new house was purchased and the construction of additional floors was on such new house purchased by the assessee and this new house building purchased by the assessee has been accepted as eligible for deduction u/s. 54F. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT This appeal […]
Shri. B. S. Byregowda (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Income from sale of cocoons cannot be regarded as agricultural income in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Lakshmanan & Co. Vs. CIT (2000) 108 Taxman 167 (SC); wherein it was held that income derived by the assessee […]
In the instant case, we notice that the TPO has entertained the belief on the basis of presumptions that the assessee’s AMP expenses have promoted the brand value of its AE, i.e., no material has been brought on record to show the existence of International transaction. Before us, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on various case laws.
Savitri Kadur Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: When the partnership firm paid lump-sum amount to retiring partner, it was paid in consideration of her retirement in the partnership and assignment of her interest to other partners, the transaction would amount to transfer u/s 2(47) and liable to tax excess amount over partner’s capital account under […]
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Power of review is not an inherent power but must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Courts have consistently held that review proceedings imply those proceedings where a party, as of right, can apply for reconsideration of the matter already decided upon after a fresh hearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties and that such a remedy is available only if provided by the statute.
under the Indian income tax law, the scope of taxable income depends upon the residential status of an assessee. In case of an individual, residential status depends on the number of days of stay in India in a given tax year.
Where assessee-society was engaged in activity of finance business and was also engaged in activity of granting loans to general public as well, it could not be termed as co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members, hence assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80P.
Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 54F in respect of the investment made by assessee in purchasing the capital asset (land) as the said purchase of land was not within a period of one year prior to the sale of capital asset or falling in any of the categories in which assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s.54F.
