The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, on Wednesday furnished an order which ensure that tax payers are not charged penalty for unspecified reasons.
Impugned addition u/s.50C(2) of the Act mandates reference to DVO in case an assessee contests the jantri price in question to be higher than fair market value of the relevant capital asset.
M/s. Vivekanand Society of Education and Research Vs CIT (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) Where there are more than one such institutions, which are under a particular society or trust, such as the assessee society in the present case, the aggregate annual receipts of each of the educational institutions would have to be considered separately […]
ACIT Vs. Everest Industries Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) 1. The only grievance of the revenue in this appeal is that the provisions of section 50C of the Act mandates that where a transfer of capital asset being land or building or both is for consideration less then its value as adopted/assessed by the State Government for […]
Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) comprising of Judicial Member S.S.Godara and Accountant Member Pramod Kumar has deleted the addition under the Income Tax Act in respect of unutilized CENVAT credit.
Central Information Commission observed that the response provided by the CPIO/Respondent with respect to Points 03 and 04 was in total disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and contradictory response was provided by the Respondent during the hearing. The Commission therefore directs the Respondent, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Roy, CPIO/JCIT, Range-03, Bokaro to show cause why penal action should not be taken against under the provision of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 for this misconduct and negligence within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of that order under intimation to the Complainant.
It is not in dispute that the assessee purchased MS Office software and used the same in its business. By purchasing MS Office software, the assessee has not become owner of the software. The ownership of MS Office software remained with Microsoft company.
We are of the view that assesse has not filed any Certificate of Registration granted u/s. 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is mandatory for availing the exemption u/s. 11 to 13 of the Act
Shri Dron Sureshkumar Rao Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahemdabad) F&O business carried out through recognized stock exchange cannot be treated as speculative loss in view of the exceptions carried out under s.43(5) of the Act. As per clause(d) of first proviso to section 43(5) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from […]
By purchasing licence to use MS Office software assessee received enduring benefit in the course of earning of profit, however, it did not become owner of the software, therefore, licence fee could not be treated as capital expenditure.
