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.
Since assessee had not been served with any intimation or any other communication regarding the grant of interest under section 244A for assessment year 2009-10 and refund in question had been directly credited by department to bank account, the amount of interest had been provided in financial year 2015-16 on receiving of information from AO, therefore, addition being interest under section 244A could not be made by the AO.
The Suvikas Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad) Essence the RBI Directions, 1998 are prudential/ provisioning norms issued by RBI under Chapter IlI-B of the RBI Act, 1934. These norms deal essentially with income recognition. They force the NBFCs to disclose the amount of NPA in their financial accounts. They force the NBFCs […]
Merely because an even higher authority has expressed similar satisfaction does not obliterate the satisfaction of appropriate authorities.
ITAT Ahmedabad clarifies Section 54: Exemption on capital gains for new property. Extended filing, capital gain scheme explained. Case details.
The ld.counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue authorities took us through section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and pointed out that as per sub-section (2) of section 159 notice upon legal heirs ought to have been issued by the AO, which the AO has failed to do so, and therefore, the assessment order is a nullity and deserves to be quashed.
The fact of the second sale was denied and the same arguments were put forth, namely that (i) the assessee had no knowledge of the second deal and (ii) the purchasers of the property Kanekleta Umengbhai Thakker and Umangbhai HiralalThakker had filed affidavits stating that they paid only Rs.3.70 crores and that the sale deed of Rs. 1.37 crores was executed by mistake.
Background It is a matter relating to validity of re-opening of assessment on a technical ground in the case of Mayurbhai Mangaldas Patel v ITO. The learned Ahemdabad ITAT Bench has noted all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law as applicable in very clear manner. It has kept some issues open […]
