Manne Hareesh Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee has debited in his P & L Account an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 towards Accounting Charges. On query, it was explained by the assessee that the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,40,000 was […]
Naveen Kumar Kaparthy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the land purchased by the assessee as agricultural land & whether the income from such sale is business income or capital gains?
Though AO had issued notice under section 148 on 26-3-2014, i.e., within period of six years from the end of relevant assessment year, however, it was returned unserved by postal authorities and even notice by affixture was also served on 4-4-2014 and there was no report of AO containing names and addresses of witnesses having identified the property, therefore, in the absence of section 148 notice served within stipulated period, reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in charging depreciation at the rate of 30% on wheel loaders and graders?
: Where there existed reasonable cause for the assessee in accepting the loans in cash and particularly as the loans were repaid by way of RTGS, i.e., via banking channels, penalty levied by AO under section 271D was deleted.
ITAT held that the business receipts of the foreign residents are not taxable in India since the agents have no PE in India and therefore, the assessee was not required to make TDS u/s 195 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee’s appeals for all the three A.Ys are allowed.
Assessee having already set up its business was eligible to claim basic administrative expenditure as business expenditure though business operations were commenced in the subsequent year.
M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) (ITAT Hyderabad) We have perused the order of the Tribunal and find that in Para 8 of the order, the Tribunal has considered the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 201(1) also to 201(1A) and has clearly held that sub section (3) refers only to an […]
ITAT held that Stock- in-trade can be considered as transferred only in the year in which the assessee has executed the sale deed transferring the stock-in-trade and not when the assessee has given stock-in-trade for joint development to the builder. As already held in the above cases, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) would apply only to the capital asset and not to stock-in-trade.
