The assessee, a company stated to be engaged in Real Estate business, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.6,84,051. The assessee filed a revised return on 14.10.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.5,23,751. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
Initial burden was on assessee to show that transactions in loose sheet were not in the nature of undisclosed investments. As assessee failed to discharge the same, AO was justified in making addition under section 69.
In the recent landmark judgement of Texport Overseas Private Limited v. DCIT [IT(TP)A No. 1722/Bang/2017], Honorable Bangalore Tribunal held that: it would be deemed that clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act”) was never been on the statute as it has been omitted w.e.f. April 01, 2017 vide Finance Act, 2017 and nothing was specified whether the proceeding initiated or action taken on this continue.
Undisputedly the assessee has not earned any exempted income. Now it is settled position of law that whenever assessee did not earn any exempt income, no dis allowance could be made u/s. 14A of the Act.
Whether the omission of reference of section 40A(2)(b) from section 92BA by virtue of the amendment of Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 shall be deemed not to be on the statute since its introduction w.e.f. 01.04.2012?
Pursuant to the amendment made by Finance Act 2017, omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA of the IT Act, 1961 be deemed to be removed from statute since the beginning until and unless there is some saving clause or provision that pending proceedings shall be continued and be disposed off under old rules.
The present four stay petitions are filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13, seeking extension of the stay earlier granted by the Tribunal on various occasions. In this regard, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the assessee had made the following payments out of the total demand, for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13
JCIT (Asst.) Vs. M/s. Bharath Beedi Works Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) Objection of the AO is that borrowing from Directors and shareholders is not for business purpose. The AO has noted that even as per the assessee’s contention, if the assessee had an intention of starting a branch in Orissa, the same appears to have remained […]
As no activity was undertaken by the assessee which could be said to be business activity, no deduction was allowable under section 36(1)(iii). Thus, AO was justified in disallowing the interest paid on borrowed capital to assessee.
ITAT Bengaluru held in the case of Nuance Transcription Services India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT that Outstanding Receivables from AE is an international transaction as per Explanation to Section 92B inserted by the Finance Act 2012 and non-charging of interest for a period exceeding 6 months requires ALP adjustment.
