The issue under consideration is whether the benefit of section 54 of the Income Tax Act, being a beneficial provision, can be denied to the assessee due to non-compliance of procedural requirements?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is correct in claiming depreciation on customer list and goodwill by considering it as intangible asset?
Shri Kasi Viswanathan Ramnathan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The issue under consideration is whether the denial of exemption under section 54F by CIT(A) is justified in law? In the present case, assessee has claimed the exemption u/s 54F in the return including the amount which had not been utilized before 31.07.2012. But later the assessee utilized the entire sale […]
ITAT Remit Back the case of Actor Dulquer Salmann (Assessee) back to Assessing Officer (AO) as Information reconciling source for investments which were added as undisclosed income were placed before it but not placed before AO.
Reassessment was justified by the income tax department against former Indian Cricket Team Captain Krishnamachari Srikanth and non compete fee of Rs. 7.50 crores was exempt from tax being capital receipt;
The issue under consideration is whether TDS u/s 194H is applicable on discounts allowed for prepaid SIM Cards/ Talktime as distributor margin?
Higher rate of depreciation was allowable on ATM machines as these machines was to be treated as “Computers” for the purpose of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sree Sankeswara Foundations and Investments Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The appellant namely M/s. Sree Sankeswara Foundations and Investments is a Partnership firm constituted under the Partnership Act. It is engaged in the business of real estate. The return of income for the AY 2016-17 was filed. Against the said return of income, the assessment was […]
As regards to issue of allowability capital loss incurred by assessee on assigning of debts due from certain debtors, it was concluded that merely because assignee company did not disclose business income in their income tax returns for subsequent years in year of recovery of debts, that would not prejudice right of assessee company to claim capital loss in the year of extinguishment of their right in favour of assignee company. Hence, events that had happened after the date of assignment of debt, could not be used to judge the transaction, which had happened on the date of assignment.
Sri Vishnu Shankar Mill Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the 1962 Rules cannot be invoked for making disallowance u/s 115JB of the 1961 Act but disallowance of expenses incurred relatable to earning of an exempt income is to be computed in accordance with Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB of […]
