Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Board Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The AO during the assessment proceedings has made the disallowance of Rs.50.85 crores in determining the income under normal computation of income under the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. The AO made the addition of the same disallowance while […]
Urmin Marketing P.Ltd. Now known as Unicorn Packaging LLP Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Scheme of the amalgamation can be approved under the provisions of section 2(1B) of the Act where shareholders holding not less than 75% in the value of shares of the amalgamating company become the shareholders of the amalgamated […]
B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is elementary to say that the ‘satisfaction’ can only be formed by the person who is competent to impose penalty and not a lower ranking authority. The law provides for imposition of penalty by an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner. Thus, the […]
The issue under consideration is whether deduction can be claimed under Research and Development (R&D) for Amount incurred towards development on a mechanism to produce customised products?
Ashokbhai Chinubhai Bharwad Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee has shown his share of sale consideration at Rs.81.00 lakhs being 25% share. The AO further found that sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad City Taluka had valued the property for the purpose of stamp duty payment at Rs.5,24,83,000/- as against sale consideration shown by the assessee at Rs.3,24,00,000/-. Therefore, […]
whether the CIT (A) is correct in confirming addition u/s 145A of the Act to closing stock for unutilized Cenvat credit in respect of credit inputs or capital goods purchased?
If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of power under section 153A.
Lonsen Kiri Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmadabad) Once the comparable company becomes the AE of the assessee in the year under consideration, then such company cannot be considered for the purpose of comparable. Case Summary: – Facts of the case: The assessee is a joint venture of two companies namely Well Prospering Ltd […]
In the instant case, the assessee in the year under consideration has claimed an expense under the head prior period item in its profit and loss account. Such prior period item was representing the excise duty with respect to waste i.e. Spent Earth generated during the manufacturing process. The assessee during the assessment proceedings admitted that such expenses pertains to the earlier year but the same is allowable on payment basis under section 43B of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether where a trust has incurred shortfall due to its excess spending in a particular year, such deficit or shortfall allowed to be c/f in full for set off against the incomes in subsequent years under s.11(1)(a) and Section 11(1)(b) of the Act?
