Explore Angalakshmi Spinning Mill vs ITO ITAT Chennai case. ITAT allows spare parts replacement as revenue expenditure. Full text of ITAT Chennai order.
In case, Assessing Officer finds that if property is accounted in books of firm M/s. S.P. Hospital as a commercial property and the property is used for the purpose of hospital, then the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction under section 54F of the Act.
ITAT held that even if you invoke provisions of Sec.47A(3) of the Act, to withdraw exemption granted u/s.47(xiv)(b) of the Act, but, in principle there cannot be any capital gains on transfer of goodwill, because, said goodwill is not self-generated or created on account of conversion of proprietary concern into a Pvt. Ltd. Co., but acquired by incurring cost.
D. Ravikumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Held that two apartments owned for residential purpose are being used for commercial purposes as service apartments and hence needs to be excluded for the purpose of deduction u/s 54F. Facts- During financial year relevant to AY 2007-08, the assessee has sold property for consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs […]
Shri Palanisamy Chinnasamy Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) In this case, The assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 144(1)(b) of the Act by making addition of ₹.5,34,000/- under section 69A of the Act on the ground that the money received from the customers on various dates in old notes cannot be accepted a genuine as […]
Ashwin Barai Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We find that there is no dispute with regard to applicability of section 40A(3) of the Act, when cash payments made for any expenses in excess of prescribed limit, however, in each and every case provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be applied, because, real nature of transactions need to […]
Amount paid by the buyer to the tenant for the vacation of tenancy should not be taxed in the hands of the owner of the capital asset.
Held that provisions of section 23(1)(c) are applicable when the property was let out for two or more years, however, was vacant for the whole previous year. Accordingly, income tax on rental income on a notional base doesn’t apply.
It is an admitted position that the alleged expenses incurred by the Assessee were business expenses of the company and therefore no personal benefit accrues to the Assessee as alleged by the authorities below. Hence, this Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked by alleging that Assessee had benefitted.
ACIT Vs Smt. Shobhakaver Surana (ITAT Chennai) It could very well be seen that the assessee is a trading concern. It has maintained category-wise stock details which has been valued at average cost. The assessee is subjected to Tax Audit which contain quantitative details and well valuation of stock under each category. There is no evidence […]
