ACIT Vs Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) We find that the assessee is under the obligation to part away with the source of income to the holding company and it was not its volition alone, to give away the revenue that could have been otherwise accrued to them. An agreement entered into by […]
The assessee has written off the assets which were not found/traceable and as the assets were scattered over different areas, the entire exercise of listing of such fixed assets got crystallized during the year and hence, the booking of the expenditure under head prior period expenses of fixed assets, merits to be allowed in the hands of the assessee.
The issue under consideration is that whether the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest received amounting to Rs.11,10,810/- and other income amounting to Rs. 6,36,746/- is correct or not?
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer has not given any separate satisfaction for the assessee and only a mechanical satisfaction was recorded.
In the given case the appeal is filed by the assessee society because their application for registration under section 12AA is rejected by the CIT with the reason that the society is a commercial entity engaged in providing medical services on commercial lines and levying huge fee for the same, without any act of charity.
Word assessable has been inserted in section 50C w.e.f. 01/10/2009. Thus, prior to 01/10/2009, the section 50C was applicable over the sale of properties, which were sold by of the registered deed where the stamp value was assessed by the registration authorities and the section 50C was not applicable,
AO cannot reject suo-moto disallowance made by assessee under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without recording his satisfaction as required under Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Hence, the order of Assessing Officer was upheld to the extent that the payment of non-compete fee was a capital expenditure and the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act on the said capital expenditure.
ITAT held that a retiring partner took only money towards the value of his share on retirement and when there was no distribution of capital assets going to the partners, there was no transfer of capital asset and consequently, no profits or gain was chargeable under Section 45 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Veolia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ground- Learned CIT(A) has erred in considering amounts aggregating to Rs.26,839,975 towards Value Added Tax and Service Tax included in the customer’s work order as constituting part of construction contract value for the purposes of recognizing revenue under AS7. The CBDT Circular No. 4/2008 dated 04.04.2008 clarified […]
