Held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdictional powers
Investment made by the assessee in another company is on capital account and further, when loss incurred on account of diminishing in value of said investment is capital in nature and thus, same cannot be claimed as deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act.
If guideline value of the property as on date of agreement of sale is considered, then there is no difference between consideration paid by the assessee for purpose of purchase of property and value assessed by stamp duty valuation authority and thus, provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, cannot be invoked.
Assessee, being co-operative society, is out of the provisions of section 80P(4) and eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)
The only issue remains for adjudication is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project undertaken and constructed by it despite the fact that nominal part is commercial area.
Assessee had purchased property in the name of married daughter, although she was divorced, but she was an independent for purpose of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, benefit of deduction under section 54 cannot be allowed, when property has been purchased in the name of married daughter
Penta Media Graphics Ltd Vs DCIT/ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) justified if assessee failed to deduct TDS on payment for software development consultancy charges to foreign companies. Conclusion: Since assessee had not deducted TDS under section 195 on payment for software development consultancy charges was made to foreign companies and failed to file any […]
Held that as the assessee was not able to furnish any evidence to the fact that the seized cash represent accounted income and also assessee has accepted that no proper cash books was maintained. Accordingly, addition u/s 69A sustained and also penalty leviable u/s 271AAA.
ACIT Vs Anush Infrastructure (P) Ltd (ITAT Chennai) Upon careful consideration of material facts, it could be gathered that the whole basis to make additions in the hands of the assessee is sale agreement dated 24.08.2009 allegedly executed between the assessee and one Mrs. Bhavika Jain. On the basis of this agreement, it has been […]
DCIT Vs Archean Chemical Industries Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) 13. The provisions of section 56(2)(viib) has been inserted to the statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and as per said provisions, where a company, not being a company in which public are substantially interested, receives in any previous year, from any person being a […]
