Ranjit Kumar Vuppu Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2014-15 against the order of the CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad, dated 14.07.2020. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Non-resident individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 […]
Sri Vamsee Krishna Kundurthi Vs ITO (International Taxation) (ITAT Hyderabad) As the assessee has spent less than 60 days in India during the FY 2013-14, he qualifies as a Non resident under section 6(1) of the Act. Therefore, the foreign allowance of Rs.19,79,072/- was not offered to tax in India in the return of income […]
ACIT Vs Late D. Mahendran (ITAT Hyderabad) The AO disallowed hire charges for non-deduction of tax u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act, with an observation that the appellant has not brought on record any supporting evidence that he had hired lorries and trucks in the manner the public hire an auto or a taxi on the […]
Raghuram Garikapati Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.10,46,957/- pertaining to quantum addition arising from treatment of rental income (as to whether it came under the head ‘income from house property’ or ‘income from […]
Additions made on the basis of statement of assessee u/s 132(4) in the hands of assessee ignoring the fact that the seized material belongs to company was not justified as the same were not attributable to the Managing Director for undisclosed and unaccounted income of the Company.
Addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees’ hands on the basis of a mere dumb document and not corroborated by any other evidence was not sustainable as the department had failed to corroborate the impugned seized document indicating assessee’s alleged on money payment over and above the sale price itself.
CIT had erred in law and as on facts in withdrawing assessee’s approval granted u/s.10(23C)(vi) as the impugned entire exercise to withdraw assessee’s approval suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction.
HSBC Electronic Data Processing India P Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Section 37(1) is a residuary section extending the allowance to items of business expenditure not covered by Sections 30 to 36. This Section, according to the learned Author, covers cases of business expenditure only, and not of business losses which are, however, deductible on […]
Shri Kamal Kishore Soni Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee has made the investment in the shares of Rockon Fintech in the year 2008-09 whereas the report of the investigation wing is dated 16.3.2018. Therefore, the argument of the assessee’s counsel that the assessee could not have known that Rockon Fintech is a penny stock company […]
ITO Vs Richmond Vivek Laboratories P Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad) Learned CIT (DR) vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned misc. expenditure disallowance of Rs.1,92,38,312/- despite the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the same by way of filing […]
