Reasonable quantum of cash available out of past savings should be considered as being available to assessee to explain source of cash deposited in bank
Bappanalli Brothers Vs ACIT (ITAT Banglore) CIT(A) concluded that the payments were not made directly to the cultivator and therefore the Assessee has not proved existence of circumstances set out in Rule 6DD(e) of the rules. ITAT held that The reasons given by the CIT(A) for treating the payment in question not to the Agriculturists […]
In the instant case, admittedly, it is loan creditors and not a trading liability. So, the assessee has not obtained allowance or deduction in computing the profits and gains of business or profession in respect of assessment of any year.
Held that foreign travel directly relating to securing the capital investment in the assessee’s business is capital in nature. Accordingly, such expenditure is not allowable expenditure u/s 30 to 38 as expenditure is not laid down wholly and exclusively for day to day operation of the assessee’s business.
Held that late fee u/s 234E for delayed filing of return of TDS not leviable while processing a return of TDS for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015.
Held that TP adjustment, relating to Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion expenditure incurred by the assessee, merely on the basis of presumption that expenses are incurred at the instance or on behalf of the AE is unsustainable
Held that interest paid on convertible debentures are allowable as expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Such interest cannot be treated as interest on equity.
Interest on late payment of TDS u/s. 201(1A) is interest on income tax & such interest cannot be claimed as a deduction.
ITAT Bangalore remits Amasebail’s Sec. 80P claim to AO based on delay condonation application. Key considerations for deduction eligibility discussed.
Assessee had given permissive possession and not legal possession, as contemplated within the meaning of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, were not applicable to the impugned Joint Development Agreement and the conditions laid down in section 2(47)(v), could not be invoked, so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2012-2013.
