If the primary or dominant purpose of an institution is charitable than any other object which by itself might not be charitable but just merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose, would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity.
ACIT Vs Hirapanna Jewellers (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case the assessee has established the sales with the bills and representing outgo of stocks. The sales were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and there were no abnormal profits. In spite of conducting the survey the AO did not find any defects in […]
No disallowance u/s 14A was called for in case of no exempt income earned by assessee in the relevant assessment years
Visakhapatnam Port Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case, the registration was already granted by the Ld.CIT vide order dated 20.03.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2002. There is no dispute with regard to genuineness of the activities and there is no finding of the Ld.CIT with regard to not carrying on the activities as per the […]
Kasapu Ramesh Babu Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Assessing Officer has to act on the basis of “reasons to believe” and not on “reasons to suspect”. In the instant case, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are based upon no evidence and/or un-corroborative material. The Assessing Officer further failed to establish the nexus […]
DCIT Vs Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material was found and seized from the premises of the assessee with regard to receipt of cash from […]
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F if construction of house is commenced prior to the transfer of the asset?
Addition was made merely on the basis of whatsapp messages and the statement recorded from section 132(4) from Shri Lanka Anil Kumar which was subsequently retracted. Therefore we are of the view that the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.
ACIT Vs Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find from the orders of the lower authorities that the basis for additional income was only estimation but not supported by any evidence. Even the department failed to substantiate the industry average of purification loss with authenticated documentary evidences. The assessee submitted that the additional income […]
The issue under consideration is whether provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are applicable on difference between consideration paid for purchase of property and SRO value as on date of agreement?
