Amount paid as security deposit was taxable only on the year of termination of an agreement between the assessee and the dealer/distributor. Hence AO was not justified in treating the deposit as income each year irrespective of whether the dealership was terminated or not.
United Tropican Veneers Private Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin) These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty orders were passed subsequent to […]
whether the interest on bank deposit earned by assessee engaged in money lending covered under head of Business Income or Income from Other Sources?
Foreign exchange loss arising out of foreign currency fluctuations in respect of loan in foreign currency used for acquiring fixed assets should be allowed as revenue expenditure by charging the same into the Profit and Loss account and not as capital expenditure by deducting the same from the cost of the respective fixed assets.
ACIT Vs Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. (ITAT Cochin) The Assessing Officer granted depreciation at the rate of 15% being machinery and plant other than those covered by sub-items (2), (3) and (8). According to the assessee, it is covered under sub-item (8)(ix)(E)(k). Sub-item (ix) of item (8) is energy saving device and (E) is electric […]
Before a scheme can be regarded as a lottery, there must be the element of distribution of prizes which should be by chance or lot and such distribution should be among those who had paid a price for participating in the scheme. Mere gratuitous distribution without any price having been paid by the participants for acquiring the chance and receiving a prize that is ultimately distributed, would not amount to a lottery.
Sri. Abdul Azeez M Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) Admittedly in this case, no audit report has been filed for assessment year 2009-2010. It is the contention of the assessee that there was a reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act. It was submitted by the learned AR that consequent to search and seizure […]
Penalty under Section 271B was justified as assessee had not produced audit report in the prescribed format before AO and no explanation regarding the reasonable cause for not filing the audit report within the prescribed time limit was given.
whether sale of industrial unit as a whole as a continuing business with land, building, plant, machinery and all equipment as a going business with assets and liabilities taxable under section 50B as slump sale or not?
ITO Vs Smt. Asha Vimala Melpuratharisu Puthen Veedu (Ponnamkulam House) (ITAT Cochin) The assessee’s land in question at Vizhinjam Village was notified for compulsory acquisition by Government of Kerala for developing Vizhinjam International Seaport. Though the acquisition proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act, the final price was fixed upon negotiated sale agreement. The […]
