In this case, assessee is engaged in manufacturing of automobile components and let out 50% of its factory building on lease and earned rental income. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held the rental income as income under the head house property. Having the rental income held as income under the head house property, the assessee is not eligible for claim of depreciation on the let out portion.
ITAT held that adjustment of disallowance u/s 14A could not be made while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB as per the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT V/s Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (165 ITD 27) as well as the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. V/s DCIT (2021; 125 com 72).
K.C. Marketing Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Assessee has claimed various expenditure from its principal by way of reimbursement. The copies of relevant bills as well as credit notes issued by M/s Satnam Overseas Ltd. in favor of assessee has also been placed on page nos. 38 to 83 of paper-book. The statement of TDS deducted […]
P.S. Jagdish Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the return of income filed by the assessee was processed by CPC, Bengaluru and intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act was issued on 05.03.2012 (which is not disputed by Revenue). Admittedly, the AO passed rectification order on 20.06.2016. The claim of the assessee is that the rectification […]
Shriram Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Forfeiture of convertible warrant would result into extinguishment of the right of the assessee to obtain a share. A share in a company is nothing but share in the ownership of the company. While the right of the assessee to share in the ownership of the […]
In our opinion, non submission of section 44AB report in cases like this does not render the assessee’s claim of a lower profit void ab initio. Failure to comply with section 44AB has to be dealt with under the provisions of section 271B. Here, the exposition emanating out of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decision and the Tribunal decision cited supra are germane. Just that initial assessment has been done u/s 143(1), the Revenue cannot invoke provisions of re-assessment on any ground they can pick up from thin air. The Revenue can also not interpolate consequences of no compliance of provisions of the Act other than what has been expressly provided in the statute.”
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The next issue that came up for consideration from ground No. 6 of assessee appeal is disallowance u/s.43B(c) of the Act, in respect of performance incentive paid to employees. Facts with regard to impugned dispute are that for the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2016-17, […]
Amendment brought in the statute i.e., by Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B of the Act amended by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective. Hence, the amended provisions of Section 43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19 but will apply from assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.
Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that rental income from sub-lease shall be considered as business income as the assesee was engaged in business of real estate development and the property in question was sub-leased in furtherance of their business. Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker (“the Appellant”) aggrieved by the order […]
The assessee has issued demand drafts to various persons and any unclaimed demand drafts is kept in stale draft account under the head ‘outstanding liabilities’. AO noticed that the amount of INR 18,42,40,053 was shown under the head ‘outstanding liabilities’. The opening balance of the said account was INR 13,97,32,235. Accordingly, differential amount of INR 44507818 is treated as income of the assessee.
