DCIT Vs Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Assessee was entitled for deduction u/s. 54F on the capital gains arising on the sale of depreciable assets being commercial flats computed in the manner laid down in Section 50 read with Section 48, 49 and 45 and section 50 was a deemed provision, therefore, its […]
Merely because assessee’s had claimed administrative expenditure which was not acceptable to Revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if there was absence of concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Amount paid to a partner upon retirement after taking accounts and upon deduction of liabilities did not involve an element of transfer within meaning of section 2(47) and not chargeable to income tax.
DCIT Vs. M/s. Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) it is duly noted that the assessee has submitted that the outstanding bonus was customary bonus and not filing u/s. 36(1)(ii) to come under the ambit of disallowance u/s. 43B(C). The assessee has quoted several case laws for the proposition that the customary bonus do not […]
Shilpa Shetty Kundra Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is observed that the assessee has already offered suo-moto disallowance of Rs.2.34 Lacs u/s 14A in her computation of income, which has been overlooked by the lower authorities. Another undisputed fact that emerges is that disallowance against average investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the […]
Since the nature of services rendered by non-resident professional showed that none of the services resulted in making available of any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know, how or process, therefore, professional fee paid to non-residents could not be subjected to TDS under section 195.
Assessee sufficiently proved that the loss incurred on premature cancellation of forward contract was a ‘business loss’ inasmuch as the same was incurred in the course of carrying on of the business
Deduction under section 54 was allowable on purchase of flats as merely because assessee, by ignorance of law or mistake, had claimed deduction under section 54F instead of section 54, such ignorance of law/mistake on the part of assessee could not be utilized to its disadvantage by AO.
Date of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade shall be determined either on the basis of entry passed in the books of account of the assessee or the intention of the assessee to exploit the capital asset into stock-in-trade for its business purpose.
DCIT Vs PPFAS Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As SEBI approval mandatory is to commence business, assessee admissible to claim business expenses only after obtaining the necessary approval. Since commencement of business require SEBI approval, expenses claimed post approval would qualify as business expense. Facts – The assessee was incorporated on 08.08.2011 as a […]
