S. 143(3) : Assessment-Bogus purchases–Accommodation entries-Readymade garments-Addition of 25% is held to be proper. [S. 69]
ACIT v. Rich and Royal (2018) 63 ITR 65 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 143(3) : Assessment-Bogus purchases–Accommodation entries-Readymade garments-Addition of 25% is held to be proper. [S. 69]
ACIT v. Rich and Royal (2018) 63 ITR 65 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S.115JB : Book profits-Provisions for computing book profits
is not applicable to Assessee company, engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity, who is required to prepare its books of account under the State Legislation and not as per the provisions of relevant Companies Act, 1956.
S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp Duty Valuation – Where the assessee explained the reasons for fetching a lesser rate on sale of immovable property as compared to the Stamp Duty Valuation, the AO should have remitted the matter to the DVO for determination of the FMV of the immovable property. [S. 45]
ACIT v. Kishore Kumar (2018) 66 ITR 158 (Vishakha)(Trib.)S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible- Deduction at source-Word ‘payable’ occurring in section 40(a)(ia) not only covers cases where amount is yet to be paid but also those cases where amount has actually been paid.
ACIT v. Guntur District Co-operative Bank Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 61 (SN) (Vishakha) ( Trib.)S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source– Contractor – In absence of express or implicit contract between the assesse and the maistries, payments made to the labourers through maistries / group leaders did not attract deduction at source hence no disallowances can be made. [S. 194C]
ACIT v. Kasiviswanadham (A)(2018) 66 ITR525 (Vishakha)(Trib)S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Short deduction – Precedent -Deducted the tax applying the provision of S.194C @2% instead of 194J @ 10%- No disallowances can be made.
[ S.194C, 194J ]
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure- Provision for fall in the value of investment held as stock-in-trade by bank is allowable as a deduction.
ACIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 433 (Bang)(Trib.)S. 37 (1) : Business expenditure-Provision for standard asset being required only to meet the unexpected eventuality is purely contingent in nature and hence is not allowable as a deduction.
ACIT v. Guntur District Co-operative Bank Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 61 (SN) (Vishakha) (Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Actual payments made to Group Gratuity Scheme are allowable as deduction even though the same is not approved by the CIT. [S. 36(1)(v)]
ACIT v. Guntur District Co-operative Bank Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 61 (SN) (Vishakha) (Trib.)S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital – Where capital was borrowed for acquisition of fixed assets and only a part of assets were put to use, then interest was to be allowed only to the extent the assets were operational during the current year
ACIT v. Pasadensa Foods Ltd. (2018) 163 DTR 243 /192 TTJ 645 (Delhi)(Trib.)