ITA No. 202/Hyd/2015 is the appeal filed by M/s. Sree Nagendra Constructions for the assessment year 2011-12, while ITA No. 167/Hyd/2015 is the appeal filed by the Revenue against the relief granted to M/s. Sree Nagendra Constructions for the assessment year 2009-10.
It was urged that the letting out of space to Infosys BPO Ltd. and BSNL at Chennai were therefore incidental to the business carried on by the assessee and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act.
In Circular No. 19/2017, paragraph 3, the CBDT has also held that trade advances, which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of the word advance in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
George Alexander Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) The Assessing Officer in para 6 of the assessment order had catalogued the unexplained deposits in various bank accounts. While working out the unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had given due credit to the income declared by the assessee in the return of […]
The Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while allowing tax exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act to Kalinga Cultural Trust, held that the activity of letting out of marriage hall by the assessee- trust would not constitute commercial activity for the purpose of denying tax relief to them.
CIT(A) has been given power u/s. 251 of the Act to confirm the order of AO reduce, enhance or annul assessment order under the provision of Act but there is no power available to Ld. CIT(A) to give direction to AO for reopening the case of other years.
The Brand promotion fee was not taxable until Negative list came into effect from 01.07.2010 and hence there cannot be any liability upon the Respondent till that period.
Tribunal was not justified in holding that the failure to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of the assessment did not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise such an order.
In reply to the show-cause notice for initiation of penalty, the assessee has replied that he is a Sr. Citizen; his accounts are looked after by Accountant. The accountant of the assessee is not qualified person. The assessee was under bona fide belief that accounts are not required to be issued under section 44AB of the Act.
Those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld.
