Where books of account and other documents belonging to other person, i.e., the assessee as recovered from searched party did not indicate receipt of unaccounted money by the assessee, such books and documents could not be considered as incriminating material for initiation of proceedings under section 153C against the assessee.
Merely because assessee-company had claimed deduction of expenditure without deducting TDS on interest payment, which was not accepted by Revenue, by itself, would not attract the levy of penalty.
Provisions of section 50C of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee as the capital asset involved here was not land or building but it is a right to purchase a building (shop).
License fee, Connectivity charges and co-ordination charges paid to a US based company GE Capital Corporation for use of ‘Vision Plus’ software held to be revenue in nature and allowable under section 37
Non compete fee is not an eligible intangible asset as the words similar business or commercial rights have to necessary result in an intangible asset against the entire word which can be asserted as such to qualify for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act which non compete fees lacks
Share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee or ask for the production of the investors for examination u/s 131 or if adverse material is found during search to prove that share application money is bogus or an arranged affair of the assessee
The exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under the provisions of Section 263 has been a matter of controversy. Especially when it comes to denying the deduction which has been allowed by the Assessing Officer during the course of regular assessment
ITO Vs. Late Sh. Ram Kumar (ITAT Delhi) It is observed from the assessment order passed by Ld. AO that Ld. AO was well informed regarding the demise of assessee. He was supposed to bring the legal heirs on record as per the details submitted before him during assessment proceedings itself. Once the non-existence of […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its recent order deleted late Fee levied on ground of TDS default since it is committed prior to 1st June 2015.
AO has treated the subscription of ICD as a loan which in our understanding is not a correct way to interpret an ICD, because it is a deposit made by the subscriber of the ICD issued by a company on a fixed rate of interest and hence it cannot be treated as a loan.
