Swift Knit Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Only arguments raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee is that, it was an inadvertent and bona fide mistake while filing the return. Question before us is, how such mistake was committed and how it could be termed as an inadvertent or bona fide mistake. In the case […]
Shri Chitrang M. Dave Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the benefit of capital gain exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to a joint owner who made the total investment in the purchase of the […]
Ocean Agro (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) A short issue before us is, whether compounding fees expended by the assessee is compensatory in nature, and allowable expenditure under section 37(1) or not. We find that Explanation 1 appended to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act prohibits allowance of any expenditure, if it was incurred […]
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a […]
DCIT Vs Swati M Kankaria (ITAT Ahmedabad) 1. Vide CBDT circular dated 11th July 2018, the income tax department has announced its policy decision not to file, or press, the appeals, before this Tribunal, against the appellate orders favourable to the assessee in the cases in which overall tax effect, including surcharge but excluding interest, is Rs […]
Suhas Vasantrao Joshi Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) If an assessee booked a flat under self-finance scheme of DDA or any other similar situated institutions, then it would be construed that the assessee has fulfilled conditions enumerated in section 54 and would be entitled for the exemption. In the present case also the assessee has booked […]
Though capital gain utilized towards purchase of new asset before furnishing of return of income either under section 139(1) or belatedly under section 139(4) would be deemed to be sufficient compliance of section 54B(2), therefore, denial of the deduction under section 54B towards purchase of agricultural land after the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) was unjustified and liable to be set aside.
Where sundry creditors arising out of the purchases debited in the profit and loss account as revenue expenses, were added to income of assessee for want of the addresses of said creditors, that did not mean assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, so as to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Skaps Industries India Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be read as a limitation to the treaty superiority under Section 90(2), we are of the considered view that an eligible assessee cannot be declined the treaty protection under section 90(2) on the ground that the […]
Shri Jafrudin Kaji Vs The ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee sold land for Rs.72 lakhs as evident from the sale deed. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the amount of cash deposits represents the sale consideration of agriculture land is without any substance. However, […]
