As CIT(E) rejected assessee’s application for registration ex-parte under section 12AA without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee in terms of section 12AA(1)(b)(ii), therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh examination and adjudication.
Assessee was entitled to claim long term capital gain exemption under section 54 on sale of property and the same could not be denied on the ground that income tax return was not filed declaring such income.
JCIT Vs Ms Flipkart India Private Limited (ITAT Bangalore) Learned DR was unable to explain the relevance of the documents now sought to be filed before us for deciding the issue that was for consideration before the AO. As we have already mentioned these documents were neither the basis of assessment or the basis of […]
CIT(Appeals) had no power in the appeal in the present case to declare the return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est in law. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the conclusion of the CIT(Appeals) holding that return of TDS filed by the assessee is non est in law is not valid in the eyes of law and the said direction is directed to be deleted and the order of the CIT(A) to this extent is held to be bad in law.
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.
