Shri Hitesh H Budhbhatti Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The allowability of interest expenditure on borrowed capital for purchase of residential house under s.24 of the Act is in question. As per Section 23(2) of the Act, the gross annual value of the residential house shall be taken at ‘nil’ where such house is in the […]
Payment to the film distributors is not subject to TDS and therefore disallowing expense by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) is not justified
Income from purchase and sale of shares was liable to be taxed under the capital gain instead of income under the head business and profession as the frequency, magnitude of transaction in a systematic manner could not be the criteria to hold that assessee was engaged in the business activity of shares.
Provision for interest liability which was accrued but not provided for in books of account would be deductible under section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F for the amount invested beyond the prescribed period but before getting the property registered since there was sufficient reason, beyond the control of the assessee, which prevented the assessee from making investment within prescribed time.
Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty.
Though vehicles were registered in the name of directors of company, beneficial ownership vested with assessee since payment was made for the purchase of vehicles by the assessee. Thus, assessee was duly entitled for depreciation thereon, especially when assessee had claimed other expenses in connection with vehicle and non-disallowance thereof proved use of vehicles for assessee’s business purpose.
ITAT held that roaming charges paid by the appellant to other telecom companies are not covered under ‘fee for technical service’ and such payments are out of the purview of TDS provision of 194J of the Act.
Non-charging of interest on the loan amount given by lending company to its director could not be a perquisite as no remuneration or salary in the capacity of the director had been drawn from the lending company nor any interest expenditure was shown in its profit and loss account.
Kanaiyalal Muljibhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue before us is, whether the house constructed by the assessee on a plot purchased in the name of HUF, exemption under section 54F, is available to the assessee or not ? The Revenue is of the opinion that for claiming exemption under section 54F, the investment ought […]
