M. Vijayakumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the CIT(A) has not doubted the source of maturity of assessee’s father FDs of Rs.8 lakhs which was withdrawn on 01.11.2016. Admittedly, the assessee made deposit on 10.11.2016 in cash, this amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The only dispute is confirmation, which now the assessee confirmed by […]
ITAT Chennai held that amount of royalty payment to holding company for using brand name is allowable as revenue expenditure.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no material on record that assessee has sought for advice of CA. Affidavit filed by the C.A. stating that assessee was advised not to file an appeal is nothing but an afterthought Accordingly condonation of delay not granted.
The assignment of debt in favor of another entity partly in exchange of land was integral part of the business activities of the assessee and any gain / loss arising on such an asset should be viewed as business profits only.
Lakshmanan Indirani Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The assessee was subjected to search action u/s 132 on 08-9-2015. During search operations, the jewellery belonging to the assessee and her family members was found. The jewellery weighed 3574.590 Grams which was valued at Rs.85.78 Lacs. In statement u/s 132(4), the assessee submitted that the jewellery belonged to […]
Devaraj Construction Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) In this case the reason for the delay in filing the appeal was that Shri S. Muthiah, F.C.A. died on 02.03.2015 and because of that there is no coordination between the assessee and the C.A. firm. The appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 28.12.2017. The assessee knows […]
Once, it is established that these payments are for construction contract and particularly the AO has made disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 269SS of the Act for levy of penalty u/s.271D of the Act.
P.S. Jayaraman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that deduction u/s 54F was solely due to difference in interpretations of the provisions and therefore, the penalty was not to be levied on this count. However, the provisions of Sec. 54EC were clear that the investment in a financial year was not […]
ITAT Chennai held that permit charges paid to Government to operate buses in the state is revenue expenditure. Accordingly Pondicherry permit charges paid to Government of Pondicherry to operate buses in the state of jurisdiction of Pondicherry is allowable revenue expenditure.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowed the claim of loss on account of written off inventory as the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence proving that such stock became obsolete and unusable.
