Ms. Sachi Sarees Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) There is no law which prohibits a person to work in more than one partnership firms and draw remuneration therefrom. All that Section 40(b) requires is that the remuneration should be paid to a working partner and there is no prohibition either in the Income-tax Act, 1961 or […]
Since assessee had given reasonable cause for availing loan in cash from his father within the meaning of section 271D, therefore, he would be out of the rigours of levy of penalty under section 271D and no penalty could be levied.
Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustified.
Since higher profit margin was earned by section 80-IC unit on account of lower cost of production due to various incentives and availability of raw material at lower rates, there was no reason to restrict assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IC.
ITO Vs M/s Megasun Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by filing sufficient evidences and accordingly, the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him and as AO failed to do so, addition of share […]
Assessee assailed the imposition of penalty under section 271B imposed by AO on account of failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB. Assessee contended that penalty was not justified as no books of account were maintained by assessee.
Firm being not a shareholder of the Pvt. Ltd. company which lent the money cannot be taxed by applying sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. So, the addition is deleted.
Addition under section 68 of short term capital loss on sale of shares alleged as bogus on the basis of investigation wing report was not justified as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were supported and evidenced by Bills, Contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements, ledger accounts of brokers and payment of STT, etc., and the transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by AO in earlier years.
Lovelock & Lewes case: Expenditure incurred by the assessee on payment of software licence fees for applications software for the right to use the software for limited/particular period of time held to be revenue expenditure
He held that the amount in question thus represented provision for meeting unascertained liabilities which was not allowable as deduction in the case of the assessee. He accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 2,25,01,129/- on account of future development expenses and made addition to that extent to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2016.
