Shri Suresh Khatri Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow) Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the appeal relate to the disallowance of Rs.6,42,437/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on payment of ocean freight, made to non-resident shipping companies. The assessee is a proprietary concern and engaged in the business of […]
The issue under consideration is whether the TCS u/s 206C at 1% will be applicable on sale of scrap not generated out of manufacturing activities?
Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) Passing ex-parte order when assessee could not attend the proceedings due to lockdown is not justified in law. Since Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide letter dated 24th March, 2020 had issued directions for stopping of the work of all offices for […]
Lucknow Development Authority Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Therefore, at the end ITAT approved to stay the outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier, provided the assessee deposits the above noted amounts within the […]
Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer while making assessments in Limited Scrutiny cases, by initiating inquiries on new issues has to comply with mandatory requirements of the relevant CBDT Instructions dated 09.2014, 29.12.2015 and 14.07.2016, i.e. the approval of the PCIT.
There are two pre-conditions for charging the income as income from house property under section 22 of the Act. Firstly, the assessee must be the owner of the property. Also, the property must not be occupied by the assessee for the purposes of his business or In other words, the property should be a residential property.
Shiv Raj Sharma Shiksha Samiti Bilaspur Vs CIT (ITAT Lucknow) It is well settled position of law that at the time of granting approval under Section 80G of the Act, what is to be examined is the object of the trust and so far as the aspect of income is concerned, the same can be […]
Expenditure on account of AMC for repairs and maintenance of computers installed at assessee’s office premises were payments of contractual nature without involving any technical or professional skill or knowledge. Therefore, TDS was rightly deducted by assessee under section 194C, instead of 194J.
Addition made by AO merely on the ground that assessee made frequent withdrawal and deposit of his own money was not justified as the same was not prohibited under any law.
While framing of assessment in pursuance of revisional order passed under section 263, AO was entitled to consider only those items which had been considered by CIT and was not entitled to consider any other item afresh for making addition.
