I.T.O Vs. M/s. Shree Gouri Shankar Jute Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)-It is not in dispute that the advance was made for purchase of Jute during the course of business of the assessee. Since the supplies could not materialize, the assessee to protect its money started charging interest
since the only reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 was absence of registration u/s 12AA (which was granted to assessee society on 29.10.2010 with effect from 1.4.2010) for the relevant assessment years and on no other ground
In the case of Devang Paper Mills Pvt Ltd Vs UOI, it was held that merely mentioning wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of the entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties.
Interest received by the assessee on account of delay in the payment of money due to it cannot be taxed separately but only as an income from business. Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi), ITA No. 3967/Del/2010, Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2015
Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer was driven to reject the book results, mainly on the ground that the profit returned on the contract receipt is very low and no stock register was maintained.
M/s Tejas Networks Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per the provision of sec. 192 of the Income-tax Act 1961, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the payment made to Cadence Designs Systems Ireland .
The facts emanating from the order of the AO and the submissions of the assessee is that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank and is engaged in banking business and the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) up to AY 2006-07 @ 100%.
The Kangra Co-operative Bank Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer disallowed the bad debts written off of Rs. 20,24,842/- on the ground that the amount of deduction claimed and allowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 3 8,00,870/- is more
Since the Rule-8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 is not applicable, therefore in our considered view the AO was not justified in applying the Rule 8D for making disallowance. The ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee was having substantial funds and lesser borrowed funds.
DCIT vs. M/s. State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Reasons had been taken from the facts disclosed in the assessee’s balance sheet as well as reflected in the Profit & Loss account which were also before the AO at the time of original assessment
