The onetime payment of the annual rent as per the lease deed is rightly claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was not right in holding that the payment during the year relates to land which is capital in nature.
ACIT Vs Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) it is beyond doubt that the relevant capital asset in the form of the building of the assessee corresponding to the expenditure not incurred actually by those two contractors mentioned above, did not come into existence and thus the assessee cannot be entitled for depreciation […]
NKC Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It could be seen from the assessment order that while dealing with the issue of allowability of the bank guarantee commission, learned Assessing Officer held that on identical facts in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 an addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was […]
Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The only dispute in the instant appeal is regarding the treatment of the loss on account of forfeiture of share application money amounting to Rs. 41,61,000/- as business loss or capital loss. While the loss is not in dispute, according to the assessee it is a business […]
Booking of bare shell of a flat was a case of construction of house property and not purchase, and since construction had been completed within three years of sale of original asset, assessee was duly entitled to deduction under section 54.
M/s. Charbhuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) Invalid Reassessment Proceedings can not be Revised Under Section 263 by PCIT It is well settled Law that since re-assessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. It is also well […]
Addition under section 68 on account of high premium was unjustified as there was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of AO once assessee had furnished all the relevant material.
Aricent Technologies Holdings Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Credit for tax deducted at source, which was deducted from the account of the deductee, by the deductor, was to be allowed as taxes paid in the hands of the deductee, irrespective of the fact whether the same had been deposited by the deductor to the […]
Deduction under section 24(b) and computation of capital gains under section 48 of the Act are altogether covered by different heads of income i.e., income from ‘house property’ and ‘capital gains’. Further, a perusal of both the provisions makes it unambiguous that none of them excludes operative of the other.
Provision for post-retirement medical benefit of employees had been created on the basis of actuarial calculation on a scientific basis and liability was not contingent but definite, accordingly, no disallowance could be made.
