Shri Thomas Eapen Vs ITO (ITAT Cochin) The assessee offered income u/s. 44AD, the assessee being a small trader in medicine. There is no dispute that the assessee falls under the provision of sec. 44AD since the turnover of the assessee is less than Rs. 1 crore from eligible business. The Assessing Officer also accepted […]
Kechery Service Co-operative Bank Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Cochin) In the instant case, the Assessing Officer had denied the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the I.T.Act for the reason that assessee was essentially doing the business of banking and disbursement of agricultural loans by the assessee was only minuscule. Therefore, the Assessing Officer concluded […]
Krythium Solutions Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) The issue under consideration is whether claiming deduction u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act through filing revised return is justified in law? ITAT states that the CBDT Circular No.14 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 has clarified that the revenue shall not take advantage of ignorance of the assessee […]
The issue under consideration is whether the AO need to conduct an Inquiry into Factual Situation as to activities of assessee society to determine eligibility of deduction u/s 80P?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition under section 68 is done by AO is justified in law whenm addition was based on third party statements which were retracted by them and Assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine them and when Addition are based merely on Surmises?
Depreciation under section 32 could not be claimed on an undivided share of land as assessee had shown the land separately in the block of assets which was not entitled for depreciation.
Interest income earned from investments with treasuries and banks is part of banking activity of the assessee, and therefore, the said interest income was eligible to be assessed as ‘income from business’ instead of ‘income from other sources’
ACIT Vs Feroke Boards Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) The first issue to be decided is whether the assets transferred by the assessee to M/s.Masonite Holdings Private Limited is a “financial asset” coming within the Explanation 1(i)(e) to section 2(42A) of the I.T.Act. The term “financial asset” has been described in Explanation 1(i)(d) to section 2(42A) of […]
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed set off of income from other sources against other heads of income because up to assessment year 2016-2017 there was no prohibition on set off of losses. It was contended that the amendment to section 115BBE of the I.T.Act restricting the set off of any loss was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017 only, hence, not applicable to the concerned assessment year 2015-2016.
The claim of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act was denied by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 (supra). The Tribunal in the above case had held that the assessee’s activities of micro finance was not charitable in nature and was not entitled to the claim of benefit u/s 11 of the I.T.Act.
