Clause (h) of Rule 2A specifically provides that ‘salary’ includes dearness allowance, if the terms of employment so provede, but excludes all other allowances and perquisites. Accordingly, the performance bonus received by the appellant did not form part of ‘salary’ for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act.
Since both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by assessee thus, assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and addition made by AO u/s 68 was based on conjectures and surmises which could not be justified.
The issue under consideration is whether Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) will be allowed if the assessee engaged in generation of electricity?
ITAT states that, in the given facts and circumstances and going by the clauses of the Scheme and reading them harmoniously and together the Tribunal held that the transfer of Lift Division comes within the purview of Section 2(47) of the Act but cannot be termed as a slump sale.
While passing the assessment order AO had followed the permissible view in law which could not be said to be ‘unsustainable in law’. Therefore, the jurisdictional facts for usurping the jurisdiction u/s 263, being absent, the action of CIT to exercise revisional jurisdiction was without jurisdiction and all subsequent actions were ‘null’ in the eyes of law.
While computing book profit u/s 115JB, assessee company was entitled, to deduct the B/F business losses as the restriction, contained in Sec.72 of the I.T. Act on carrying forward the unabsorbed business losses for more than 8 years, did not apply in computing the Adjusted Book Profit u/s 115JB.
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?
