Viral Ashish Parikh Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) it is transpired that the assessee can be granted immunity from disallowances of expenses on account of non/short deduction of taxes provided that the assessee (payer) furnishes the certificate in the prescribed form. Thus the onus is upon the assessee. However we find that assessee has not furnished […]
ITAT held that unabsorbed business losses can be set off against any income from business, be it speculative or otherwise.
Held that the mistake in not adding back the loss on sale of fixed assets in computation of income was a bona fide mistake inadvertently. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not imposed.
2 different yardsticks for same set of sale transaction made by co-owners not allowed. Assessee cannot be treated differently for similar transaction
Bilfinger Neo Structo Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) As regards ground relating to Employees Welfare Expenses includible in value of Fringe Benefit Tax, the Ld. AR submitted that the details were properly filed before the Assessing Officer which were never taken into account by the CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer. Ld. AR further […]
DCIT Vs Analytical Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee submitted that there is no contravention of Section 269SS of the Act relating to the loan transactions made through banking channel, the same are availed by the Director and passed to the assessee company through ‘journal entry’ wherein penalty u/s. 271D cannot be levied. The ld. CIT(A) […]
Held that the assessee was not carrying on any share trading business, and it was the benami business of other assessee. Accordingly, denial of the claim of loss justified.
Held that TDS not deductible when neither any patent or copyright was used by the assessee against which the royalty was paid nor there was any technical know-how made available to the assessee.
Held that since the receiver has failed to establish the creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transaction, addition u/s. 68 as unexplained cash credit sustainable.
Held that principle of res judicata is not applicable to decision of revenue authorities and, therefore, decisions given in an assessment for an earlier year are not binding either on assessee or on department in a subsequent year.
