ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]
E.I. DuPont India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO had taken the month to be the British calendar month as defined in Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act and it is only on that premise, he calculated one day in March and two days in May as two full months and calculated interest […]
The Delhi High Court in case of Bharti Mishra held that section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new property within three years from the date of transfer. However, the Act does not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of house property which may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset.
TDS u/s 194H was not applicable to bank guarantee commission as the same did not fall into clause (i) of Explanation to section 194H and exemption was provided under section 194A(2)(iiia) in respect of any payment made to any banking company to which any Banking Regulation applies.
The provisions of section 2(24)(xi) read with section 28(vi), it is evident that the amount of bonus on Keyman Insurance Policy is to be taxed on receipt basis only.
Tarun Jalali Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) Where construction of house was commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset, but it was completed within three years after the date of transfer, deduction under section 54F was admissible. Sub-section 4 of section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration of original asset towards provision of […]
Since assessee was an HUF and HUF itself could not become a working partner in the partnership firm, therefore, the due date of filing of the return applicable to assessee was 31st July of the relevant assessment year and belated return filed by assessee could not be revised.
AO was unjustified in making addition under section 41(1) on the reason that sundry creditors and other liabilities had ceased to exit as the opening balances of the liabilities were already admitted in the immediately preceding assessment years and the issue for revival was pending before BIFR because of which the creditors remain suspended but there had been no notice which could extinguish the existing right except to the extent that they became part of the sanctioned scheme.
In order to carry out the charitable activities, the Chairman of the society needs accommodation otherwise he would have to be put in rented accommodation and hence the same eligible for benefit of section 11 and 12.
Where there were no incriminating materials found with respect to the disallowance of expenditure made by AO, addition could not be made under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was examined earlier during original assessment.
