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.
Lite-on Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Facts- TPO in respect of procurement of management services determined NIL arm’s length price by holding that the assessee didn’t bring any evidence on record to suggest that it was in need for services for which it has paid to its AEs. Further, assessee has availed […]
CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal un-admitted, for the reason that assessee has filed appeal manually instead of electronically filing is mandatory under the rules. When these facts were confronted to Id. senior Department Representative, she could not controvert the above stated facts. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.
ACIT Vs Dong Woo Surface Tech India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The parent company M/s. Dongwoo HST Co. Ltd renders supervisory services to the assessee by dispatching expatriates to India for carrying out work for which the assessee company has agreed to pay supervisory and managerial fees vide agreement dated 25.12.2007. The scope of […]
International Bakery Products Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Prior period item whether expenses or income is an item of expense deductible or item of income, always comes below the line in the profit & loss account. That means, for all practical purposes, the net profit as per books of account for the relevant period is […]
For the condonation of the delay, the assessee has to show that there must be a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In this case, the assessee himself decided as per his affidavit not to go to his house knowingly that there must be an assessment order. No one is prevented the assessee to go to his house therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause to condone delay. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Jayaseelan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Shri Jayaseelan (the Appellant) has filed the current appeal being aggrieved against the order dated March 5, 2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the claim of the Appellant claiming benefit under section 54 of the Income Tax Act,1961 […]
In so far as the certificate issued by the Tehsildar is concerned which is at page No.1A of the paper book, it does not show that from the Chidambaram how it comes to 8.5 K.M and apart from that in our view the Tehsildar is not a competent person to decide the distance.
