DCIT Vs Ms. India Housing (ITAT Kolkata) We note that as per clause 10 of the Partnership Deed, no interest was to be charged or paid to the partners in respect of balances standing to the debit or credit of their capital account. As per Partnership Act, 1952, the partners can carry on any business […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 68 by considering the share application money received by assessee as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
ACIT Vs Siddhartha Bhargava (ITAT Kolkata) The issue under consideration is whether Cash deposits in bank account held as unexplained u/s 68 is justified? During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had produced bank account of the assessee in Punjab National Bank (PNB) and HSBC. On verification of the bank accounts, it was found that there […]
The issue under consideration is whether Passing of revisionary order against amalgamating company which was not in existence on the date of order is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether income from sale of tea manufactured and sold from tea leaves purchased from third parties was from non-agricultural activity and therefore, was not eligible for deduction of 60%?
The issue under consideration is whether the deletion of adjustment made u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on account of interest on loan and on account of corporate guarantees is justified in law?
Order under section 143(1) denying benefit of exemption under section 11 in case of granting of deemed registration by CIT after expiry of time limit of six months was contrary to the legal principles and thus, rejection of assessee’s application for rectification under section 154 was invalid.
This is a simple case of acquiring shares of certain companies from certain shareholders without paying any cash consideration and instead the consideration was settled through issuance of shares to the respective parties. That is, section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 does not apply to cases of purchase of share assets and allotment of shares by the appellant when purchase and allotment are under a barter
The question raised in appeal is challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of Section 14(A) r.w.s. 8D(2)(ii)&(iii) of the Rules.
Statement recorded during survey, under section 133A, does not have a evidentiary value on its own and, therefore, no addition was maintainable on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey as there was no evidence supporting the statement.
