Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) 97. The question that we really need to address ourselves to is whether the above arrangement constitutes an ‘international transaction’. However, before we do so, it is only appropriate that we take a look at the relevant definitions under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 92 […]
In the case of The Income-tax Officer vs M/s. Shree Kastbhanjan Dev Developers, the Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proclaimed in its recent order that firm cannot be assessed for unexplained cash credits in respect of capital introduction by its partner.
The ITAT bench comprising Pramod Kumar (AM) and S. S. Godara (JM) recently confirmed that the sale consideration on agricultural land after its conversion to non-agricultural Land constitutes business income and therefore, section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be applicable to such cases.
Right now we are dealing with an employee who is giving up his source of livelihood under the threat of dislocation, and the hyper technical interpretations based on technicalities about the wordings in the settlement deed, signed by him under these compelling circumstances, is being taken as the understanding about assessee’ s actual conduct;
Impugned addition u/s.50C(2) of the Act mandates reference to DVO in case an assessee contests the jantri price in question to be higher than fair market value of the relevant capital asset.
Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) comprising of Judicial Member S.S.Godara and Accountant Member Pramod Kumar has deleted the addition under the Income Tax Act in respect of unutilized CENVAT credit.
Shri Dron Sureshkumar Rao Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahemdabad) F&O business carried out through recognized stock exchange cannot be treated as speculative loss in view of the exceptions carried out under s.43(5) of the Act. As per clause(d) of first proviso to section 43(5) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from […]
ITAT Ahmedabad ruling on Ankur Scientific vs Dy. CIT case. Assessment of share gains as business income challenged. Disallowance of weighted deduction contested.
Bank of Baroda Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)-Levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) for the second month can arise only if the period of time between the date on which tax was deducted and the date on which tax was paid to the Government exceeds one month.
A.O. disallowed the payment of commission made by the assessee to the above said two doctors namely (i) Dr. Ramanbhai S. Patel Rs. 17,52,130/- and (ii) Dr. Ratilal G. Patel Rs. 23,87,001/- totaling to Rs. 41,39,131/- and added to the total income u/s. 37(1) of the Act.
