Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The assessing officer did not specifically record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. However, […]
The statutory benefit accruing to the Corporation by virtue of Section 115JB cannot be denied and in doing so, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error and we find no substantial question of law, warranting reconsideration.
The assessee, a company stated to be engaged in Real Estate business, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.6,84,051. The assessee filed a revised return on 14.10.2008 declaring loss of (-) Rs.5,23,751. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act
Assessee cannot be considered as having done willful neglect for non-compliance of the TDS provisions. This is just a technical mistake and, accordingly, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default and no penalty can be imposed.
It could not have been open to the authorities below to treat the payment of Rs 18,00,000 on account of furniture and fixtures on standalone basis, and thus exclude it as a separate item rather than as a cost of the residential house so purchased. In our considered view, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54F by treating entire amount of Rs 78,00000 as the “cost of the residential house” purchased within specified time limit under section 54.
This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-9, Chennai, dated 30-5-2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
Since assessee had made provision for audit fees to account of payee, provisions of section 194J were clearly attracted and non-deduction of tax at source would automatically invite disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
Quashing the demand of excise duty on the activity of providing BPL Kits, the Delhi bench of the CESTAT observed that to levy central excise duty on any goods, the same should have been produced or manufactured in India.
ITO Vs. Late Sh. Ram Kumar (ITAT Delhi) It is observed from the assessment order passed by Ld. AO that Ld. AO was well informed regarding the demise of assessee. He was supposed to bring the legal heirs on record as per the details submitted before him during assessment proceedings itself. Once the non-existence of […]
DCIT Vs. M/s. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has a foreign exchange division approved by the RBI and is authorized to buy foreign exchange and travelers cheques from RMCs and others and sell them to persons in need of them. RMCs are also authorized by RBI to buy foreign currency from non […]
