While hearing the case of Sri Chilukurthi Veeraiah vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Assessing Officer (AO) should give reasonable opportunity to produce evidence to assessee to examine source of gift.
Atluri Usha Rani Vs Asst. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. I have also carefully perused the development agreement-cum-GPA. The said agreement shows that the builders and developers have to bear all the expenditure for preparation of the said plan, obtaining licenses, permissions as well as execution […]
While dismissing revenue’s appeal, the Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has declared that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act 1961 even though it registered as a hundred percent Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) under the Software Technology Park of India (STPI).
SBI Officers Coop. Credit Society Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad, dated 2.11.2016 confirming the dis allowance of Rs. 77,44,295 claimed by the assessee as a deduction u/s 80P of the Act. […]
ITO Vs. Southern Steel Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) The moot point in this case is whether Sec. 5OC can be invoked when the purchaser is a government undertaking i.e, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC). In the real estate business it is prevalent that the substantial part of the consideration is unaccounted. In order to […]
ACIT Vs. Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) – 5, Hyderabad dated 30/01/2016 relates to the AY 2012-13 wherein the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the surcharge and education cess is to be […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Hyderabad on Wednesday ordered that the allowances received by a Member of Legislative Assembly is to be exempted from Income Tax.
Contention of the assessee that the non-compete fee is the business expenditure of the assessee has been upheld. The assessee has always contended that it is its business expenditure and therefore, it was required to deduct the tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. For failure to deduct the tax inspite of being liable to do so, the penalty u/s 271 C is clearly leviable.
Since the assessee has not shown any profit nor paid any remuneration to any of the members, the provisions of section 40(ba) will not be attracted.
It was the explanation of assessee that the legal opinion given by the Counsel that there is no capital gain on the STT paid transactions, was not accepted by AO stating that she is a promoter of a company and has a battery of legal advisors and her husband also has legal knowledge.
