Ifthe employees’ share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 then no disallowance can be made.
Shri Rajkumar Mandhani Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the case before us, the assessee and his wife are independent income tax assessees and the assessee already owned one house at Kilpauk, Chennai. The assessee therefore, cannot be said to have invested in order to avoid capital gains to tax in his hands, as u/s 54F(1), […]
ACIT Vs Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) there was a delay of 92 days in filing this C.O. by the assessee, for which an application for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee, wherein, inter-alia, the assessee stated that since there was a delay in getting the signatures of the MD of the company who […]
Shri Srinivasa Reddy Yenumula Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) As regards the addition of Rs.18.00 lakhs towards unexplained investment is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Engg. & Construction Co. reported in (1972) 83 ITR 0187 wherein […]
Shri Bhagwandas Nagla Vs ITO (International Taxation) (ITAT Hyderabad) Conclusion: TDS under section 195 was to be deducted in case payment for purchase of immovable property made to GPA (general power of attorney) holder of non-residents because, at best, GPA holder could be considered as only a conduit between assessee and the owners of property […]
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 […]
