ACIT Vs. Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Company can claim Depreciation in respect of Equipment Installed at Residential Premises of its Managing Director, the same should be added as perquisite in the hands of the said Director but cannot be disallowed in the hands of the assessee company
In the given case, memebrs of JV decided to form a JV only to secure the orders and execution of the orders was to be done by one of the constituents of the JV. JV was formed for the benefit of the individual members and a business was carried on for the benefit of the businessman. There was no sub-contract relationship existed between JV partners. Accordingly, the work executed by the AMRCL was not in sub-contract. Ground raised by revenue was dismissed.
Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that interest income earned from deposits of share capital as fixed deposits in bank should be considered as capital receipt which is not taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The moot issue involved in these appeals, inter alia, is as to whether an undertaking or an enterprise, established after 7th January, 2003, carrying out substantial expansion within specified window period, i.e. between 7.1.2003 and 1.4.2012, would be entitled to deduction on profits @ 100%, under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. Also, if so, then for what period.
Assessee sold 3,10,000 shares and claimed resulting gains as exempt under section 10(38). AO denied the exemption on the ground that as the shares were not held by the assessee for more than 12 months period, therefore, same could not be considered as long-term capital assets.
Jyothirmoy Yamsani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, the assessment order categorically indicates that penalty is leviable on both counts and even penalty order details the nature of default on the part of the assessee, followed by a specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Under […]
While upholding the proceedings against Advocate Rohit Tandon, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the Delhi High Courts’ order denying bail for possession and conversion of Demonetized Currency.
ACIT Vs. M/s. Jeannie Jamshed Madan (ITAT Mumbai) The fact that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in the Estate of late Shri M.S. Kotwal who is partner in the partnership firm of M/s. Mira Salt Works is not in dispute. The reason for bringing to tax the amount received by the assessee is, […]
All these, provisions of agreement would, therefore, indicate that license that has been granted is that of a fully established running hotel authorizing the licensee to operate the hotel for a specified period subject to the terms and conditions incorporated therein.
Bhavani Gems Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including cited orders of Tribunal in assessee’s case for different years. Upon perusal of the same, we find strength in the argument of Ld. AR since the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation has been allowed in subsequent […]
