CA Deepak Aggarwal - Page 10

Subsidy to set up new unit/expand existing unit is capital receipts

M/s. Shivalik Prints Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s. Shivalik Prints Limited vs. ACIT that in the judgment of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme court have held that the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under a scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which t...

Read More

Sec 10A – Deduction allowed to new unit being independent unit, physical demarcation with old unit not relevant

DCIT Vs M/s E-Soft Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow)

ITAT Lucknow held in the case of DCIT vs. M/s E-Soft Technologies Ltd. that as per the CBDT Circular No. 01 of 2013 and as per the Tribunal decision of the Pune Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Symantec Software India P. Ltd in ITA No. 787/PN/09, dated 30th November 2011...

Read More

Amount not assessable as Assessee’s income where direct payment made to parties for surrender of tenancy rights

ITO Vs Smt. Elsa Silva (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held in the case ITO vs. Smt. Elsa Silva that as per the agreement , ‘Athithi Builders’ has acquired the development rights of the said property after paying separately and directly by cheque Rs.2.73 crores to the assessee, Rs.1.23 Crores to Shri D.P.Koli and Rs.0.50 crores to Shri Alex Silva....

Read More

Expense on gifts to doctors allowed being not prohibited in law, CBDT circular only applicable A.Y. 2013-14 onwards

Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held in the case Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd. vs. DCIT that receiving of gifts by doctors is prohibited by MCI guidelines but giving of the same by manufacturer is not prohibited under any law for the time being in force....

Read More

Addition u/s 153A for completed assessments not valid if no incriminating material found during search

M/s. Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is settled legal position that no addition can be made to the income already assessed since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search....

Read More

Validity of Notice via post for delivery, posted on last day of Limitation Period & Notice by affixture

ITO Vs Shri Rajesh Agarwal (ITAT Lucknow)

ITAT Lucknow held In the case of ITO vs. Shri Rajesh Agarwal that undisputedly notice of hearing under section 143(2) was issued on the last day of limitation/prescribed period for issuance of notice i.e. on 30.9.2011 at 15.19 hours by speed post....

Read More

Brokerage expenses not allowed against income from house property

M/s. Radiant Premises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Radiant Premises Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that the phrase rent received and receivable u/s 23, contemplates the amount received for the enjoyment of the property and certain rights in the said property by the tenant....

Read More

Interest on TDS deduction default not sustainable, where tax liability of deductor is NIL

M/s. Anusha Investments Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court held In the case of M/s. Anusha Investments Ltd. vs. ITO that in the present transaction, admittedly there is no tax liability on the purchase of shares. As a result, the question of deducting tax at source and the assessee violating the provisions of Section 195 does not arise...

Read More

No addition u/s 41(1) for unclaimed stale Drafts / Pay Orders if liability to pay back not ceased

CIT & ACIT Vs Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank (Karnataka High Court)

Karnataka High Court held In the case of CIT & ACIT vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank that Section 41(1) attracted when an allowance or deduction is sought to be made in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability is incurred by the assessee....

Read More

Penalty U/S 271(1) (C) Not Maintainable In Absence Of Proper Notice

M/s. Safina Hotels Private Limited Vs CIT & DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

Karnataka High Court held In the case of M/s. Safina Hotels Private Limited vs. CIT & DCIT that it is clear that the notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c), which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessi...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,719)
Company Law (7,655)
Custom Duty (8,709)
DGFT (4,622)
Excise Duty (4,526)
Fema / RBI (4,811)
Finance (5,179)
Income Tax (38,391)
SEBI (4,129)
Service Tax (3,776)

Search Posts by Date

September 2021