Asst. Vs Sai Bhaskar Irons Ltd. Once addition under section 68 was included in gross total income, AO had to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss as provided under section 71 dealing with the set off of loss from one head against income from another head. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal […]
Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of 3,90,370/- on 3.10.2007. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) on 31.12.2009 determining the total income at 6,90,370/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for not considering the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of IT Act.
In this case, the assessee filed the return of income admitting total income of 98,820/-. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) was carried out in the case of M/s. A.S. Steel Traders on 11.10.2012 and in the course of search, the document No.5019 of 2011 of SRO
In the instant case the assessee has made the payments to the LIC towards group gratuity scheme directly in approved schemes. The assessee has also obtained the policy in favor of the bank. The assessee has no control over the funds contributed to LIC towards the gratuity.
DCIT Vs Smt. Sriram Satyavathi (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The fact that the company M/s. Vijetha Constructions has taken the advances for sale of flats was substantiated by the registered sale agreements. The same cheque No. and the dates were mentioned in the promissory note and the sale deeds which fortifies the assessee’s contention that the promissory […]
Shri Balaji Builders Kakinada Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Merely because books of account could not be traced at the time of survey/search, it could not be presumed that the books of account were not maintained unless all the efforts were made by AO. Further As per the provisions of section 153C of the Act, it […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Agri Gold (ITAT Visakhapatnam) During the assessment year, the assessee has received the interest of Rs. 7,43,76,762/- and offered it under the business income. The said practice of offering the interest income under the head business income was followed by the assessee for the last so many years, which was accepted by […]
Visakhapatnam bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that remuneration paid to partner cannot be disallowed since there is a clause existing in the partnership deed which specified the exceeding limit.
Many petty payments were made in cash and it was also not ascertainable whether payments attract disallowance under section 40A(3). Clearly, assessee could not establish genuineness of the expenses, therefore, AO was justified in computing income on estimate basis.
Where assessee could not furnish any explanation regarding source of receipt of money, except saying that it was loan borrowed from parties, the addition made by the AO under section 69 was justified.
