Since the director was not a shareholder when bonus was paid to him and also the bonus was not paid out of the earlier years’ accumulated profits, therefore, deduction of bonus paid to director was allowable under 36(1)(ii).
Smt. Sapna Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) It is settled position in law that the question of Jurisdiction is not a matter of acquiescence. The proprietary of Notice under section 148, based upon ‘reasons recorded’ is not dependent upon the objection or no objection by the assessee at the stage of assessment. If the Reasons […]
As the actor Shilpa Shetty was a brand ambassador for IPL team Rajasthan Royals, she was bound to render certain services without any charge to subsidiary company JIPL owned by holding company of her husband and assessee did not receive any consideration for the services rendered to JICPL, in the absence of any ‘price’, the provision of services could not be considered as an ‘international transaction under sec. 92(1).
Addition made under section 68 on account of share capital received by assessee as unexplained credit was to be deleted in absence of any material or inquiry conducted by AO that the issuing companies were non-existing entities or a paper company and AO had not brought material on record to dislodge the veracity of the evidences filed by assessee.
Where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy, the actual rent received or receivable is less than ALV, the sum so received or receivable during the year is less than the sum received or receivable during year shall be annual value, then no deemed rent could be assessed.
When assessee itself had filed separate TDS statements in respect of the tax deducted at source relating to the respective flats, while processing such statements under section 200A, AO had to levy fee under section 234E taking into account the delay in filing each of the statements and the levy of fee prescribed under section 234E could not be restricted to one challan–cum–statement filed in Form no.26QB.
Where allotment as well as execution of the agreement did not vest two different capital assets in the hands of the assessee which got exchanged with each other upon execution of the agreement rather the event of allotment as well as execution of agreement was part & parcel of the same transaction and only an improvement in ownership rights held by assessee in the flat, therefore, period of holding had to be taken from the date of allotment and the resultant gains earned by assessee would be LTCG only.
Addition under section 68 made by AO of the entire share capital and premium received during the year on the basis of negative observation about availability of funds with share applicant was unjustified as the share applicant was the sister concern of assessee, from whom similar share application with premium were received in the earlier year and the balance sheet of the share applicant showed ample source of funds.
Assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 on long term capital gain on sale of properties as the holding period of the asset should be considered from the date of acquisition of asset in the light of agreement to sale, but not from the date of possession of the property.
Shri Prashant Jayantilal Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The sole subject matter of present appeal is to adjudicate whether the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on certain premises, which although forms part of block of assets,has been let out during the impugned AY & earned certain rental income which has been assessed as […]
