In the given case the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had received hoarding charges of Rs. 41,80,000/- from M/s Dezen Products for advertising display on boundary walls and the same was offered for taxation under the head Income from House Property.
Even though assessee had made payments to related parties, yet in view of fact that there was no material on record to demonstrate that payment made was excessive and unreasonable having regard to market rate, disallowance made under section 40A(2) by AO was to be deleted.
Provision for leave encashment being in the nature of an ascertained liability was to be reduced while computing the book profit under Section 115JB.
Non-disposal of objections challenging the validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 is not a mere procedural lapse but affects the jurisdiction of AO to pass assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147.
In the given case, the appeal is filed by revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The issue here is that as per assessing officer there is requirement for assesse to prove the source of funds in the hands of the receipts received by assessee.
Where shares are held by an assessee as stock-in-trade, the earning of exempt dividend income on the same would trigger the applicability of Sec. 14A of the Act. Aoordingly shares which were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade were to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A of the Act.
Where assessee was under a bona fide belief about allowability of certain provisions and there was no suppression of facts or deliberate concealment on assessee’s part, mere disallowance by AO due to difference of opinion could not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Interest income generated during pre-operative period was correctly reduced by assessee-company from WIP as the same was inextricably linked with the power project and would be considered as capital receipt
Notice under section 153C was to be issued with recording of separate satisfaction note even if AO of searched person and the other person, i.e., assessee was one and the same,therefore, in absence of the same, any order passed, in pursuance of such notice was void ab-initio and liable to be quashed
DHL Logistics Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have to consider whether goodwill is an intangible asset under section 32, hence, eligible for claim of depreciation. In our view, this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra) where the Hon’ble Supreme […]
