No addition could be made under section 69B because the two pieces of evidence relied on by Revenue Authorities viz., the data retrieved from the Pen-drive and the admission by the vendors of the property though might have a persuasive value but would not have much substantive evidentiary value in order to make additions in the hands of the assessee.
AO was justified in treating the payment to ROC for increase in capital as capital expenditure as ROC expenses was fees for enhancement of capital.
DCIT Vs Monster.Com (India) Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad) In the assessee’s own case the Tribunal observed that the assessee followed appropriate revenue recognition method of accounting and thus the income declared on proportional receipt basis cannot be questioned. This order was followed by the ITAT in the assessee’s own case in the A.Ys 2007-08 to […]
ITO Vs Suresh Babu Vasireddy (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee is basically engaged in the business as a real estate agent in Hyderabad deriving commission income. The modus operandi of the business activity is that of identifying properties for sale in Hyderabad and simultaneously identify the interested buyers and sell the properties with a marginal profit. […]
The Advocates Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD These appeal filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are directed against CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad’s separate orders, dated 21/02/2019 for AY 2011-12 & 2014-15 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 147of the Income Tax Act, […]
DCIT Vs Cache Properties Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Fact that the property let out is a commercial complex is not sufficient to treat the rental income therefrom as ‘Business Income’. The tests to be applied are; 1) the tenure of the lease, 2) the objects of the company; 3) the intention of the company; and […]
DCIT Vs Late Ajit Kumar Vaddevalli (ITAT Hyderabad) We find substance in the submissions of the ld. AR that the AO has passed the order in the name of late Ajit Kumar, nonexistent person, the information of which has been intimated to AO by the wife of assessee, who is the legal heir, during assessment […]
Smt. Rontala Tirumala Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT finds that the statement of the M.D Shri Rontala Raji Reddy was recorded on 17.10.2014 i.e. a day after the survey on 16.10.2014 and the diaries impounded during the course of survey allegedly corroborated the statement. It is a settled position that no addition can be made […]
ITO Vs Ayesha Abid Ali (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition in the hands of the assessee of interest income from an A/c with HSBC held by the assessee jointly with her husband which was opened by his employer to deposit his salary income. Therefore, it is not an […]
ACIT Vs V.V. Rajam (ITAT Hyderabad) On perusal of the statement, AO has observed that the assessee has purchased a land of 2 acres in survey No. 356/3E1/1 situated at Pragnyapur village, Gajwel Mandal, Medak District in his name for a consideration of Rs. 1.2 crore as well as purchased a house in Hyderabad in […]
