M/s. Kamineni Educational Society vs. Joint DIT (Exemptions)-Issue- The common issue involved in these appeals is about the disallowance of depreciation claimed by assessee in respective assessment years on the reason that the cost of assets had been claimed as application of income by assessee
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s Scooters India Ltd. that as per the provisions of section 150(2), the provisions of sub section (1) of section 150 are not applicable if it is found that at the time when the order of CIT (A) was passed
In the matter of transfer pricing adjustment, no reasons have been given by the present TPO to reject the method of Cost Plus basis adopted by the assessee and accepted by the Department in earlier year(s).
In the present case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the place of delivery could not be termed as place of removal for the relevant time mentioned in the show cause notices with respect to section 4 of Excise Act and Rule 5 of Excise Valuation Rules.
On going through the aforesaid reason, it is clear that the appellant has filed the application in a most casual manner, without justifying the reason for condonation of such a huge delay. In the circumstances, in the absence of any sufficient cause to explain the delay of 227 days
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ITO vs. Alok Mukherjee that where both the parties not performed terms & conditions of the agreement to sale in prescirbed time and prescribed maneeer, it is breach of contract, so it will not be a transfer of property on the date of such agreement.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case Kurian Ulahannan Moothukuzhiyil vs. ITO that in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. in ITA 160/2015 & ITA 161/2015 dated 26/08/2015, it was held that there is one thing common to both the provisions to Section 40(a) (ia) and Section 201 (1) is that the as long as the payee has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income, the Assessee would not be treated as a person in default.
M/s. Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) In the present case the matter before the ld. CIT (A) was payment of interest for the A.Y. 2006-07 and also for A.Y. 2008-09. In both the matters, the interest was restricted by the AO to 12%
The Serendipity Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- The assessee has derived its lease rental income under the head from other sources. There is no dispute that the same is covered u/s.56(2)(iii) of the Act.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of M/s Brothers Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the case laws referred by the CIT (A) are squarely distinguishable on the ground that there was a written off either by the assessee or bilaterally
