Interest earned on deposit of surplus funds could not be taxed as business income in view of the fact assessee was not in the business of money-lending.
Legal and professional fees paid in connection with the transfer of shares was allowable as deduction from long term capital gain under section 48(i) as the expenditure incurred was wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of shares of the Indian Subsidiary.
Since the transaction between assessee-company and other group concern were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing both types of entries i.e., receipts and payments and assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, therefore, the amount received from other group concern could not be brought in the purview of loans and advances so as to attract Section 2(22)(e).
Since both the employee’s and employer’s contribution to Provident Fund was covered under the amended provision of section 43B, therefore Employees contribution to Provident fund (EPF), beyond the due date stipulated under the Provident Fund Act but before the due date of filing return of income under section 139(1) could not be disallowed by invoking section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) BOGUS PURCHASES – On the basis of information, huge racket of hawala dealers involved in issuing bogus invoices to allow the traders to claim tax credit was discovered. Assessee was alleged to be one of the beneficiary to who dealt with certain parties engaged in hawala racket. […]
Payment made by assessee to SEBI under consent order was an allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) and the same was not in the nature of the penalty for infraction of the law.
evisional order passed by the Principal Commissioner in case of Anil Kapoor Film Co. Pvt. Ltd was upheld as AO had not made enquiries/verification, to satisfy himself with respect to creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of the transactions before framing the assessment.
Where assessee had purchased new residential house utilizing own funds lying in his saving bank account, deduction under section 54F could not be denied on the allegation that assessee did not utilize capital gains for investment purpose because source of utilization of fund is irrelevant for claiming benefit of deduction under section 54F.
Mere fall in GP rate could not be the ground for making in-depth inquiry. As per section 145(3), books could be rejected only in the situation where AO was not satisfied about the correctness / completeness of the accounts of the assessee.
Shri Sanjay Gurudasmal Chawla Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 24(b) of the Act for the reason that the assessee claimed such deduction only by way of revised computation in the course of the assessment proceedings. However, this claim of the assessee was entertained by the […]
