ITAT Judgments - Page 4

ITAT on Commencement of Business of Metro Rail Project

M/s. Hyderabad Metro Rail Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Hyderabad)

Assessee has taken all the necessary steps to facilitate the building of Metro Rail System. Since the assessee has taken steps in furtherance of its main objects, it cannot be stated that the assessee has not commenced its business....

Read More

No HRA Exemption on non genuine Rent Paid to Mother

Mrs. Meena Vaswani Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Assessee had claimed deduction u/s 10(13A) of 1961 Act which is a wrong claim as no rent was paid by the assessee and the said alleged rent of Rs. 31,500/- per month being paid to mother was shown only to take exemption of HRA u/s 10(13A) of 1961 Act. ...

Read More

TDS U/s. 195 not applicable on Payment under Secondment if same is taxable in India as Salary

Burt Hill Design Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Ahmedabad)

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of learned CIT(A)’s order dated 10th Jul 2012, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10....

Read More

No LTC / Tax benefit on Foreign Tours provided to staff, TDS deductible

State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)

The provisions of the Act are in relation to the travel concession/assistance given for proceeding on leave to any place in India and the said concession is thus exempt only where the employee has utilized the travel concession for travel within India. Further under Rule 2B of the Income Tax Rules the condition for allowing exemption unde...

Read More

Capital gains from penny stocks cannot be denied on presumption

Smt. Sunita Jain Vs Smt. Rachna Sachin Jain (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Bogus penny stock capital gains: Claim of the assessee cannot be denied on the basis of presumption and surmises in respect of penny stock by disregarding the direct evidences on record relating to the sale/purchase transactions in shares supported by broker’s contract notes, confirmation of receipt of sale proceeds through regular bank...

Read More

1st proviso to Sec. 68 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is retrospective: ITAT Kolkatta

M/s. Classic Flour & Food Processing Vs C.I.T. (ITAT Kolkata)

1st proviso to Sec.68 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1-4.2013 was only prospective in operation, we are of the view that since section 68 covers `any sum credited’ in the books without any exception...

Read More

Deduction u/s 54 can be claimed even if only land appurtenant to residential house is sold

Sh. Adarsh Kumar Swarup Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Deduction u/s 54 of the Act is also available even if the land, which was appurtenant to the residential house, is sold and it is not necessary that the whole of the residential house should be sold because the legislature has used the words or which is distinctive in nature....

Read More

Exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of 15% of Income is unfettered and not subject to any conditions

Seth Walchand Hirachand Memorial Trust Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee is a charitable trust and has challenged the confirmation of the order of the AO where he disallowed the accumulation of the 15% even when the income was allowed u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO observed that if the trust is not left with surplus and there is deficit, then there can be no accumulation made. He further stated t...

Read More

Service of Notice to the firm: ITAT Amritsar Explains the Law

Rajan Chopra, jalandhar Vs. DCIT (ITAT Amritsar)

A partnership firm purchased property from NRI but failed to deduct TDS u/s 195. The ADIT (International Taxation) raised demand comprising tax and interest by issuing notice to one of the partners of the firm in his individual capacity. ...

Read More

Rights fees Payment to ICC is not Royalty or Fees for technical services

Reebok India Company Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT held that that the payment made by the assessee to ICC amounting to Rs. 4.56 crore as `Rights fee’ is not in the nature of `Royalty’ or `Fees for technical services’ covered u/s 9(1)(vi) or 9(1(vii) of the Act and as such the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on this payment. Ex consequenti, the provisions of sec...

Read More
Page 4 of 392« First...23456...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,354)
Company Law (3,238)
Custom Duty (6,410)
DGFT (3,340)
Excise Duty (3,989)
Fema / RBI (3,152)
Finance (3,316)
Income Tax (24,362)
SEBI (2,658)
Service Tax (3,261)

Search Posts by Date

April 2017
« Mar