Since AO had not considered revised return of income which was filed within prescribed period of limitation for the difference between income disclosed in return and total receipts as per Form 26AS, therefore, the matter was remanded back to AO with direction to verify the fact and grant relief to assessee in accordance with law.
Landbase India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Depreciation on the golf course – Whether depreciation should be allowed considering it as ‘plant and machinery or land or building. Matter: 1. Applicable Rate of Depreciation on Gulf course. Facts of the case 2. The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of operation of golf […]
Since neither AO conducted any enquiry nor had brought any clinching evidences to disprove the evidences produced by assessee and assessee had furnished all details including bank statement, share brokers note, ledger account copies, share certificates, in support of purchase and sale of shares and mode of payment and receipts of proceeds thus, no addition could be made under section 68 as AO had merely relied on investigation wing report without disputing vortex of evidences furnished by assessee.
Issues have been examined by the A.O and just because the opinion as arrived by the A.O is at a variation of the opinion of the learned Pr. CIT, would not grant the learned Pr. CIT the powers of revision u/s 263 of the Act.
Nikon Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly, fire occurred during the year, the traded goods of the assessee are lost during the year due to fire. Such traded goods were the stock in trade of the assessee. Undoubtedly, the traded goods were insured with the insurance Co for any loss due to fire. […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Assessing officer is correct in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening the assessment without passing speaking order?
As in the present case before us, issues subject to revision were pertaining to original assessment and not the reopened assessment; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In this case as original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act was passed on 16.01.2014, the revision thereof could have been taken up to 31.3.2016
Rahul Kumar Vs. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 07.01.2019 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Flat […]
The issue under consideration is whether extra realization made in rupees for export sale proceeds in foreign exchange due to adverse exchange rate of rupee would be part of the export turnover in the year of receipt and qualify it for deduction u/s Section 80-HHC ?
When the company got back its funds on the same day, it cannot fall into the definition of the deemed dividend.
