Raghavendra Lorry Services Vs DCIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find from the order of the Ld. AO, the Ld.AO has followed the directions of the CIT and has estimated the income @ 15% on the gross receipts without allowing the depreciation. It was also found from the submissions of the Ld. AR that the assessee a partnership […]
ITAT find that since registration is restored by ITAT, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction U/s. 11 in impugned assessment year
Where Assessing Officer, after following directions of Principal Commissioner regarding examining of claim made by assessee for exemption under section 54F, passed an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 holding that assessee was eligible for exemption as it held only one residential property during year, subsequent revision order passed by Principal Commissioner setting aside impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue was to be quashed
Mother of assessee is staying with her and hence benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 should also be extended to the mother of assessee
Palla Simhachalam (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) AO of the searched person and the other person is one and the same, then also AO is required to record the satisfaction, as held by the various In the instant case, no such material has been brought before us by the ld. DR. In view of the […]
Section 54 Cost of new residential house includes cost of land construction materials labour & other cost of construction of residential house
ITAT held that Reasonable time limit for issue of notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is 4 years and Assessee cannot be taxed for non-deduction of TDS U/s. 195 if non-resident discharged obligation with respect to payment of capital gains tax
Held that identity of the donors as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act has been established by the assessee. Accordingly, the donations cannot be categorized as anonymous donations and cannot be subjected to tax.
Held that as identity and creditworthiness of the investors is established, merely because of delay in transferring of the shares to the prospective investors, the amount cannot be treated as unexplained investment u/s 68.
Held that addition of the amount of unsecured loan sustained as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the loan transactions except filing the affidavits.
