M/s. Oxcia Enterprises Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Jodhapur) Even though the admitted position is that the assessee buyer/transferee has not deducted tax in the hands of the Joint Owners of the property, still we note that sub-section(2) of sec. 194-IA of the Act provides an exception from deducting tax of 1% of the sale […]
Mahnoo Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine and had not condoned the delay. He mentioned that there was delay of 740 days in filing the appeal, however, the claim of the assessee is that the delay is of 217 days. […]
The house which is not having any actual rental income but self occupied by assessee should be determined as per the municipal ratable value. Accordingly, the matter is restored to file of the Assessing Officer to find out the municipal ratable value of the house for computing income u/s 22 of the I.T. Act. We direct accordingly.
These are the appeals filed by the different assessees against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) Ajmer dated 05/10/2017 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the matter of order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short
It was explained by the appellant that the money deposited in the bank account represented cash received from elder son, who was tax payer and the withdrawals in the bank account had a a chronologically progressive linkage of events.
Excess stock found during the course of survey and surrender made thereof was found to be taxable under the head |Income from business or profession|. Similarly, in respect of excess cash found out of sale of goods in which assessee was dealing was also found to be taxable as business income thus, there was no justification for taxing such income under section 115BBE.
Joint Commissioner has failed to grant approval in terms of section 153D of the Act i.e., after application of mind but has rather carried out exercise in utmost haste and in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the approval so granted by him is not an approval which can be sustained.
Payment of electricity bills to JVVNL is held to be the payment made to the government for the purpose of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act and therefore said section 40A(3) cannot be invoked and no addition is called for and additions so made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is directed to be deleted.
These appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur for assessment year 2008-09 vide order dated 19-11-2015; assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 20-11-2015
ACIT Vs Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665. Tribunal, Chandigarh, has held that the expenditure on telephone installed at the residences of directors is not covered by section 38(2) and expenses in case of a company cannot be for non-business purposes and the […]
