AIA Engineering Ltd Vs. Add CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It was held that investment made by AIA Engineering Limited (AIA India or the assessee) in Vega Industries (Middle East) FZE (Vega UAE) shall not be treated as investment in a proprietary concern of AIA India though Vega UAE had no other shareholder.Vega UAE is considered to be established as an independent corporate entity with separate financial liability from those of its owner in accordance with the memorandum of incorporation and the only situation where the owner will be treated as personally responsible is regarding the omission of some specified information.
ACIT Vs Ashima Dye cot Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)- After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable: it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad case between DCIT and Shri Jayesh Chandulal Patel where penalty proceedings were restored for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from the order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 26/02/2009 passed for A.Y. 2003-04. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act of Rs. 16,50,000/- which was confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeals).
Manishkumar & Co. Vs. ITO( ITAT Ahmedabad)- The first ground relates to addition of Rs.13,77,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked by the AO to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender in respect of the loan of Rs.13,77,000/- shown in the name of Shri Madanlal J. Panjabi. The assessee was only able to furnish the death certificate of Madanlal J. Panjabi. No other evidence including that from the legal heir of Mr. Panjabi was submitted The AO therefore, made the addition of Rs.13,77,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Before ld. CIT(A) also no details could be submitted by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. Further aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before us.
M/s. Rudraksh Developers Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The facts involved in the case of the assessee are similar to the facts in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) and accordingly we are of the view that the assessee has acquired the dominant over the land and has developed the housing project by incurring all the expenses and taking all the risks involved therein. We may mention here that, in our opinion, the decision in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) will not apply in a case where the assessee has entered into the agreement for a fixed remuneration merely as a contractor to construct or develop the housing project on behalf of the landowner.
According to the aforementioned definition, capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee whether or not connected with the business or profession and it excludes certain items which while considering the facts of the present case are not relevant. Therefore, it has to be seen that whether by entering into an agreement vide which the assessee was allotted a particular flat by allotment letter whether the assessee has held any asset or not? By entering into an agreement to allot a flat, the assessee has identified a particular property which he is intended to buy from the builder
Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Section 192(3) of the Act enables the employer to make adjustment of any excess or deficiency arising out of previous deduction or failure to deduct during the tax year. If there are bona fide reasons for short deduction in the earlier months and the same is made good immediately […]
ITO, Bharuch Vs The Ankleshwar Taluka ONGC (ITAT Ahmedabad)- It is pertinent to note that in the assessment order, the AO disallowed the entire payment made to the farmers amounting to Rs.2,57,62,253/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of he IT Act. Apart from this, the AO disallowed Rs. 51,47,250/- under Section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance of Rs.51,47,250/- was made twice i.e. once under Section 40A(3) and then invoking section 40(a(ia).
Growth Avenues Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax – Penalty u/s 271D can be levied against a person who takes or accepts any loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS. Sine in this case there is no such violation on the part of assessee company the penalty cannot be levied against it. If at all there is any violation of the provisions of Section 269SS, it was on the part of Shri Rakesh Doshi and Viren Shah as is clear from the cross-examination of Shri KKS.
