DCIT Vs Niyati Construction Co. (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee has claimed that interest on Fixed Deposit, interest on SSNL Fixed Deposit and interest on SSNL Bonds was made out of surplus funds available with the assessee and the interest income was part of the business income. Therefore, the same was correctly included for calculating remuneration […]
Sacmi Engineering India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) main issue for our consideration is that whether the expenditure on conversion of debenture bond into equity share capital is revenue or capital expenditure. The claim of the assessee is that since capital base has been increased due to conversion of debenture for meeting working capital […]
Dashratbhai Gopalbhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find that the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the land parcels situated as Adalaj does not fall within the meaning of expression ‘Municipality’ or ‘Municipal Corporation’ and therefore falls in exception provided in sub-clause (a) to Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. As stated on behalf of assessee, […]
ITO Vs Gujarat Storages P.Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) As far as banking transactions are concerned, these details were available with the AO. This information was given in the audited accounts. Any transactions shown in the bank statement could never be construed per se as an escaped income. It is the AO who has to form his […]
DCIT Vs Welspun Projects Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad) It was also argued by the learned DR that there is no provision under the Act for amortization of the expenses. Therefore, the assessee should not be allowed the deduction of the expenses amortized in the year under consideration. Undoubtedly, the assessee has incurred the expenses on the […]
ITO Vs Shri Udaykumar D. Bhatt (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 271(1)(c) cast responsibility upon the AO to reach the clear finding with respect to levy of penalty under the specific charge and if the AO fails to do so then the penalty cannot be levied as such penalty order shall not be maintainable in the eyes […]
Electrotherm (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: Since AO after applying his mind on information received from VAT Department arrived at the conclusion, based on the reasons to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment. and at the time of issuing notice under section 148 AO had formed prima facie opinion for escapement […]
Commissioner issued a show cause notice under section 263 and ultimately passed impugned order; by that time the alleged domestic transaction of purchase from related party was not required to be considered as a specified domestic transaction under section 92BA of the Act. It has been omitted, and therefore, no proceedings under section 263 should have been undertaken by the ld. Commissioner.
Addition made on account of under-invoicing of sales to sister concern was not justified unless and until export sales to sister concern were sham transaction.
ACIT Vs Krishna Coil Cutters Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) On facts, it has emerged that the lender company has charged interest on the advances made to the assessee company. In the circumstances, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra vs. CIT (2011)338 ITR 538(Cal) has observed that advances given by […]
