Interest expenditure could be allowed only if the loan was borrowed for the purpose of the business of the assessee and if it is used for the purchase of an asset which yielded exempted income, that interest expenditure cannot be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
The ACIT Vs M/s. Ooty Gate Hotel (ITAT Cochin) In order to understand whether the sale was a slump sale or sale of independent items of assets, necessary we have to examine the intention of the parties to the sale agreement. If the business of the vendor is sold as such as a going concern, […]
M/s. Geojit Investment Services Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Cochin) The assessee-company in the instant case, had received the compensation for not carrying on any activities in relation to its commodity trading business. The compensation so paid for not carrying any activity in relation to any business (commodity trading business) would be taxable going by the […]
ITO Vs M/s. Perinthalmanna Service Co-operative Bank Limited (ITAT Cochin) The Assessing Officer in the impugned orders had disallowed the claim stating that the assessee could not be treated as a primary agricultural credit society as it is engaged in the business of banking and in view of insertion of section 80P(4) with effect from […]
M/s. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons and […]
The position under section 161(1) of the Act is that a trustee under a trust cannot be assessed on the aggregate income received by it as a single unit. The assessment in the name of the trustee in terms of the sub-section can be made in two ways.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in allowing the assessees appeal relying on the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. K.G. Ruminiamma (2011 )331 ITR 211 when the facts of the case are distinguishable from the assessee’s case. In the case of Smt. K.G Ruminiamma
These appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), both dated 30.06.2016. The relevant assessment year is 2009-2010.
M/s. K.V. Joseph & Sons Engineering Contractors Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) In this case the assessee paid Rs. 200 lakhs as an advance payment to Mr. K.J. Paul to carry out sub contract work of road at Edapally, High Court. The plea of the assessee is that it was incurred for the purpose of business. […]
Hll Biotech Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cochin) Conclusion: Since assessee-company was still at the pre-commencement stage and during this phase, it had raised equity funds which was invested in fixed deposits of the Banks as well as the holding company and had earned interest on the same, the interest earned had to be taxed as […]
