ITAT held that depreciation eligible on goodwill which has arisen pursuant to business acquisition made by the assessee
AO erred in assessing cessation of liability towards unsecured loans availed from financial institutions in terms of order of BIFR u/s. 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
A. Sivashankar Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) In our considered view, the estimation made by the AO towards undisclosed income of under reporting of sales Revenue from sale of plots, is purely a guess work, which is based on the suspicion and surmises, but not based on any material evidences. Facts- The only issue that came […]
S. Ashokan Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Addition towards cash payments u/s 40A(3) unsustainable in absence of any incriminating materials found during search – claim of assessee abruptly rejected that cash found during search pertains to earlier AY. Facts- The first issue in assessee appeal is validity of assessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A. […]
International Agricultural- Processing (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The assessee is engaged in the business of export of processed agricultural produce like gherkins, onions and other vegetables. The assessee company is a 100% Export Oriented Unit and has claimed deduction u/s.10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) from the AY 2000-01. […]
Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the Tribunal in the case of The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd., supra, has considered the issue of applicability of provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding […]
ITAT Chennai held in the case of Shanthilal D Jain Vs DCIT that Penalty under Section 271B for failure to get account audited not leviable when books of accounts are not maintained.
The assessee deposited this amount of Rs.2.20 crores in his bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank and the inference in which the normal man will draw is that the amount cannot be from any other source except from the transaction of sale of land because it is common in the transactions of immovable properties that there is under hand transactions.
ITAT Held that since no specific charge was framed either in the show-cause notice or in the body of penalty order and there was failure on the part of Ld. AO to frame specific charge against the assessee, the penalty would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. By deleting the impugned penalty, we allow the appeal.
A. Johnkuma Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The assessee, a Proprietor of M/s. A.Johnkumar Cost Price Shop and M/s.Johnkumar Real Agency, is engaged in the business of running a Departmental Store and real estate business respectively. A search and seizure operation was conducted u/s.132 of the Act, on 17.09.2016. During the course of search, a […]
