When assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, disallowance under section 14A could not be made.
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-V, Hyderabad, dated 31/08/2016 confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act dated 4.3.2015.
In accordance with the view expressed by the third member, Hon’ble Vice-President, Hyderabad, the ground of appeal No.4 is partly allowed and the AO is directed to allow the deduction from the book profit of sum of Rs.22.89 crores while computing the taxable income u/s 115GB of the I.T. Act. The ground of appeal No.4 is therefore, treated as allowed.
The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of matching material for women clothing and she was also running a tailoring centre. For the year under consideration she declared total income of Rs. 1,33,900/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 52,450/-.
If the assessee has subscribed to the preferential warrants as an investor, then the share application money assumes the character of capital expenditure and the loss incurred by the assessee on forfeiture of the initial payment already made by the assessee is capital in nature. But if the assessee is trading in shares and in the course of such business, if it has incurred loss, it would be revenue expenditure.
Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Only if subsidy or other grant was given to offset the cost of an asset, such payment would be covered by Explanation 10 to section 143(1). In the instant case where subsidy was received as an incentive for setting up industries to generate employment, the mere fact that […]
The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a chart depicting various issues arising in all of these appeals and it is seen that most of the issues are repetitive in all the years. Therefore, we are disposing of the appeals on the basis of the issues arising therefrom.
It was the contention of the AO in Income Tax proceedings that assessee had indeed handed over the possession of the property as on 01-04-2006, which led to assessing the capital gains arising on the transfer of that property in AY. 2007-08. Therefore, as on 31-03-2007, the property was no longer in the possession or ownership of assessee.
Adarsh Coopertaive Urban Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) ATM is a computer telecommunication device that allows Bank Customers to access banking at places other than the normal bank without having to take the trouble to go to the Bank in person and collect the cash as is done under the conventional method of withdrawing […]
Smt. Anju Gaggar Vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) During the relevant financial year, there were repeated purchase of same scrip and sale thereof immediately, almost on daily basis to take advantage of the market fluctuations. Further that, records of the broker clearly revealed that she had no intention to make investments for long periods. Hence, income […]
