Phrase prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue had to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO, that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue,
As can be seen from the terms of the relevant agreement between assessee and LAPPL, assessee is to receive 15% of the total contract amount as mobilization advance. Though, it may be a fact that in the TDS certificate, deductee has mentioned it as payment towards professional charges but
ITAT held in ITO Vs General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd that the incentive offered by the BSNL to its franchisee was in the nature of trade discount not in the nature of commission because after the payment made by the franchisee to the BSNL all risks and rewards relate to the franchisee.
In the Case of ITO-TDS vs. BSNL, the Hyderabad Tribunal observed that the relationship between the BSNL and the franchisee was recognised by the CBDT by inserting third proviso to S.194H. The assessee being public sector undertaking stands on a different footing and the view taken by Delhi High Court
ITAT held in Manikanta Concerns Vs DCIT that if the assesse had claimed deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of purchase then it did not mean that assesse could not claim deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of sale.
In deciding the exemption u/s 54F in the case of Sri M.S. Lakshmana Rao vs. DCIT, Hyderabad Tribunal held that non-compliance to condition of depositing sale proceeds in capital gain account scheme as required u/s 54 will not be so fatal to debar the assessee from getting benefit of section 54F.
ITAT Hyderabad held in Shri M.S Lakshmana Rao Vs DCIT that if the assesse had not deposited the capital gain amount under the capital gain account scheme in bank then the assesse should not be barred of the exemption of sec 54
In the case of Manikanta Concerns vs. DCIT, ITAT Hyderabad held that the shortage at the time of purchase and the shortage at the time of sale are two different issues and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that once the assessee has claimed shortage at the time of purchase
Medravathi Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is observed that the assessee company as well as other thirteen land owning companies were incorporated with their main object to carry on the agricultural activities and there is no dispute about the same. In order to pursue this main objects, these companies purchased agricultural […]
Navayuga Quazigund Expressway (P)Limited V/s. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad), It was contended on behalf of the assessee that interest under S.201(1A) was computed by the assessing officer by considering part of the calendar month as full month
