ITO Vs M/s. Necleus Steel Private Limited (ITAT Delhi) In this case, assessee received an amount of Rs.67.50 crores from M/s. Unitech Ltd., as advance against the sale of the property. The assessee filed confirmation from M/s. Unitech Ltd., along with its bank statement and acknowledgment of filing of the ITR with balance sheet. The […]
Zion Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The investment in the share of the assessee company by the above five companies whose directors appeared before the Assessing Officer and whose statements were recorded and full details were filed substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the investor companies and the genuineness of […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Real Strips Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) The addition was solely made on the basis of the statement furnished by the production manager of the assessee at the time of survey. The lower authorities have not brought any iota of evidence suggesting that the assessee has suppressed the production leading to suppressed sale out […]
Axis Risk Consulting Services Private Limited. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) the only dispute before us is with regard to the adjustment by way of imputing interest @ 17.22% by the TPO on account of receivables from the AE. Here in this case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has also rendered similar services […]
Income Transferred from Capital Fund A/c to Income is eligible for deduction U/s. 11of Income Tax Act, 1961 and provisions of Section 11(3)(c) of the Act clearly permits to utilize the funds either within the specified period or in the next year immediately following the expiry of the period
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
The present report dated 16.04.2018, has been received from the Director General of Safeguards (DGSG) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application dated 20.09.2017 was filed by above applicant before the Standing Committee, constituted under Rule 123 (1) of the above Rules alleging that the Respondent had not charged GST on the base price of the lift ordered by him from the Respondent, after excluding the pre-GST Excise Duty on the material component and thus he had been charged tax twice on the same material.
Manohar Reddy Basani Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessing Officer having concluded that the assessee having neither disclosed the capital gains in the return of income nor claimed any deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to get any deduction u/s 54F, in the same way he should not have added the […]
Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of investment in capital markets. Assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,35,493/-. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that there were unsecured loans to the extent of Rs. 19.25 Crs under ‘advances recoverable in cash or kind.
ACIT Vs Chaitanya Educational Trust (ITAT Hyderabad) Since the assessee has filed the certificates of the recipients with proof that the recipients have offered the income to tax in their hands, the assessee shall not be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT All are […]
