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 […]
Income on sale of a technical concept, that assessee developed on his own, with respect to website malware monitoring was non-compete fee taxable as business income under section 28(va) as the consideration was in respect of parting the knowledge by assessee concerning confidential information relating to the business.
Shri Pawan S. Jalan Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) If we consider the explanation of the assessee filed before the ld.CIT(A), which has been partly reproduced in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on page no.3, then it would reveal that chief accountant of the company was ill and failed to hand over assessment order to the […]
Shri Harish M. Kukreja Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The solitary issue involved in the present appeal is towards extent of disallowance permissible under s.14A of the Act. We find merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee that the disallowance under s.14A of the Act cannot surpass the quantum of exempt income in […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Asian Food Industries (ITAT Ahmedabad) This is a settled principle of law that the interest income for the purpose of ascertaining ceiling on the basis of book profit, the profit shall be in the profit and loss account. The interest income, thus, cannot be notionally be excluded for the purpose of determining […]
