Category: ITAT
Depreciation on intangible assets on conversion of proprietorship into private limited company allowed as the transaction was not considered sham ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3019 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT vs. Sandvik Chokshi Ltd. 55 taxmann.com 453 (Gujarat) Commonwealth Trust …
Addition made in the present year to work-in-progress to be considered as opening stock next year-ITAT directs AO ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3018 (2019) (06) ITAT The assessee was a private limited company engaged in civil construction. The Return of income of the company was processed u/s …
On statutory disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) 40A(3) there cannot be any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) especially when assessee not claimed deduction of these expenses ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3016 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR …
Repairs to preserve and maintain already existing asset and to improve its longevity eligible eligible as current repairs ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3015 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT vs. M/s MAC Charles (India) Ltd. CIT vs. TS Tech Sun India …
AO not required to issue draft rectification order for assessment completed u/s 144C. Only a proposed “order of assessment” can be challenged before DRP ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3014 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:CIT Vs C Sam India Pvt Ltd Dimension Data …
Draft Assessment order u/s 144C with demand and penalty notice is illegal as it partakes the character of final assessment order – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3013 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: Pr. CIT Vs. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. International …
Exemption u/s 54B available even if part of land is in cultivation, there is no requirement that entire land should be in cultivation for claiming benefit. Merely because of admission to disallowance, assessee can not be denied the benefit to which he is eligible ABCAUS Case Law Citation: …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as addition for bogus purchases was based on estimation and assesee’s conduct was not found contumacious ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3011 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted …
Provision of section 68 applicable even if business not commenced but the sum is credited in the books of account of the assessee ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3010 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT V Bharat Engineering and Cost Co 83 …
Tenancy rights not intangible assets, no question of allowing depreciation on it – ITAT. These rights not covered as “any other business or commercial right” ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3009 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: M.M. Nissim & Co. vs. ACIT …
