As assessee had duly proved source of cash deposit in her bank account to be opening cash balance and gift from her parents, no addition could be made under section 68.
In re The Mobile Wallet Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Maharashtra) In fact there is one composite supply under GST, provided by the acquiring bank to the merchant establishment for which gross value of consideration is Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) which includes the interchange fee. Hence, the supply of Service of the issuing bank got subsumed […]
Shree Vimalnath Jain Swetamber Mandir Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Raipur) We find that the learned Commissioner (Exemption) has refused registration under section 12AA of the Act to the assessee since donations received were not properly accounted for and also because that the objects of the Trust was for betterment of Jain Community and for benefit […]
Nikhil Chandra Mitra Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Disallowance of Rs.60,000/- made on account of accounting charges by invoking the provisions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee submits that the person whom the amount was paid was not a qualified professional and he was an accountant writing the accounts and hence 194J of the Act, […]
Since assessee had brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares were genuine and AO had brought nothing controverting material to deny the same, therefore, the long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s. KAFL claimed as exempt by assessee could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of investigation wing.
Prabhudas Liladhar P. Ltd. Case: Once The Whole Basis Of Addition Itself As Made By The AO In Quantum Has Been Deleted By The Tribunal And Expenses Were Related To The Business Penalty Levied By The AO Under Section 271(1)(c) Deleted
CIT Vs M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The appeal was filed by the Department (appellant herein) before the High Court against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). However, the said appeal was defective and the appellant took abnormal time of 1371 days in removing those defects. An application for […]
The petitioner says that he is a senior citizen of 65 years of age and because he is not in possession of Form No.16, he has suffered at the hands of the Department. Let, therefore, the necessary steps be taken in law so that such occurrences are avoided in future.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Viksit Engineering Ltd. (Bombay High Court) We note the fact, that the issue of classification of income on sale of shares as business income or as short term capital gains is to be decided the facts of each case. The tests to be applied for such determination is provided in CBDT Circular No.4 of […]
Rajender Kumar Sehgal Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) When the notice was issued, the assessee was already dead. If the Department intended to proceed under Section 147 of the Act, it could have done so prior to 31st March 2017 by issuing a notice to the LRs of the deceased. Beyond that date it could […]
