M/s. EPE Process Filters & Accumulators Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee’s submissions in support of its claim u/s 37 of the Act are that it has purchased the IPL cricket match tickets to distribute them amongst its long standing customers to garner their goodwill and improve its business relations and therefore, it is […]
ITO Vs KSK Wind Energy Halagali Benchi Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee’s have been incorporated on 03-01-2011 with the object of generation of electricity from non-conventional sources, the project of which is proposed in the state of Karnataka and for this purpose investments have been received in the form of equity capital of the assessee companies […]
Where assessee did permit developer to enter into premises and do all necessary things for construction of apartments and assessee handed over the possession, provisions of section 2(47) got attracted.
DCIT Vs Progressive Constructions Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Expenditure incurred for gaining right to operate the project facility and collect toll charges resulted into an intangible asset eligible for depreciation Conclusion: Expenditure incurred by assessee of Rs.214 crore for creating the project or project facilities had created an intangible asset in the form of right to operate […]
Kalyan Constructions Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Where assessee had not claimed cash payment of Rs. 1.50 crores for purchase of land as business expenditure or treated as stock or capitalized the same in order to claim depreciation in the future, disallowance under section 40A(3) could not be made. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This […]
Once the financial statements were ratified by the shareholders, assessee had no right to modify the profit declared as per Companies Act and adopt differently for the purpose of MAT provisions. Therefore, the profit adopted by the company in the AGM overlooking the qualification of auditor was the final book profit for the purpose of section 115JB, assessee could not alter the same by claiming that it had not followed certain Accounting Standards.
CIT should not stop merely on finding that the order was erroneous but also had to establish that the order of AO was prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus, revision could not be made in such a case and the order of AO was restored.
Taking into account the amount mentioned in Form 26AS it could not be said that the assessee had concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was restricted to the tax sought to be evaded on the amount of commission income not disclosed by assessee.
K. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The development agreement implied that assessee did permit the developer to enter into the premises and to do all the necessary things for construction of apartments. Some of the agreement holders also sold the flats in semi-finished condition or in fully developed condition, whereas few like assessee retained […]
Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd Vs CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is settled position of law that the provisions of section 14A can be applied to quantify the expenses in relation to exempt income. Since the exempt income is Nil, section 14A will not apply. The Rule 8D can be applied only when there is difficulty in […]
