Adilakshmi Srungavarapu Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Admitted facts are that the husband of the assessee in order to retain the property got the property registered in the assessee’s name and has repaid the loans borrowed by him by sale of gold jewellery and personal savings of the assessee. We also find merit in the argument […]
If the assessee did not adhere to the surrender made during the survey, it was for the AO to bring on record cogent material or other evidence to support the additions rather than rely on the statements simpliciter.
Assessee consistently deposited sale proceeds realized by way of cash, such deposit is in accordance with law, addition deleted
Explore the ITAT Visakhapatnam’s resolution in the case of Smt. Sabhapathi Padmasree vs. ITO regarding deemed dividends. Learn how collateral security provided by the assessee impacted the tax treatment of loans and advances under section 2(22)(e).
Explore ITAT Visakhapatnam ruling on non-filing of Form 67, denial of foreign tax credit. Analysis of Rule 128(9), mandatory nature, and grounds for disallowance.
Based on the merits of the case on a beneficial note we are of the opinion that since the GPA holder namely Sri. Yarlagadda Ravi Chandra Prasad has disclosed the income from the sale of plots gifted by his sister in his return of income and discharged his liability of taxes on returned income, in his return of income, the same cannot be taxed once again in the hands of the assessee.
Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) That the export entitlements (MEIS) and the duty drawback of promotion scheme is an income asssessable under the head “profits or gains from business or profession” accordingly, eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(11A). Facts- The assessee is engaged in the business of export of frozen shrimp and other […]
Tribunal held that human interaction is a necessary factor for the applicability of section 194J and in present case Assessee has to intervene and coordinate and liaise with Government Authorities for allotment of land by Government. Hence, provisions of section 194C is not applicable.
Gowtham Residential Junior College Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has declared income by way of rent received to the tune of Rs.2,06,66,410/- and treated the same as business income for the current year. The assessee has claimed expenses to the tune of Rs.88,51,069/- involving bank charges, repairs and maintenance, interest […]
Progressive Poultry Farm Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) As per provision of 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if any amounts are used for non-business purposes by the assessee, the same are to be disallowed. Since in this case, the partners have made drawings from the assessee firm and used for non business purposes, the […]
