Business deductions and transfer pricing issues: tribunal treatment of software write-offs, donation receipts, warranty provisions, and related expens...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2921 to 2940 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal held that the AO's and CIT(A)'s addition of deemed rent for five Mumbai flats was unsustainable because the assessee had bona fide intention to let and took efforts to rent the properties, thus attracting s.23(1)(c) relief; Ground No.1 allowed. Ground No.2 was dismissed: the office at Hariom Chambers was properly held chargeable to tax under Income from House Property because the assessee did not carry on a business/profession chargeable to tax under profits and gains. Alternatively, Ground No.3 was allowed: the assessee may designate Hariom Chambers as self-occupied and treat Ruby Villa as deemed let, and the AO is directed to recompute income from house property accordingly.
The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal held that the AO's and CIT(A)'s addition of deemed rent for five Mumbai flats was unsustainable because the assessee had bona fide intention to let and took efforts to rent the properties, thus attracting s.23(1)(c) relief; Ground No.1 allowed. Ground No.2 was dismissed: the office at Hariom Chambers was properly held chargeable to tax under Income from House Property because the assessee did not carry on a business/profession chargeable to tax under profits and gains. Alternatively, Ground No.3 was allowed: the assessee may designate Hariom Chambers as self-occupied and treat Ruby Villa as deemed let, and the AO is directed to recompute income from house property accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
