Delhi High Court held that order is liable to be set aside and matter remanded to ITAT since ITAT failed to provide appropriate reasoning with regard to functionality of comparable while undertaking transfer pricing adjustment.
Section 194-IA mandates 1% TDS on immovable property purchases from resident sellers if consideration or stamp duty value is ₹50 lakhs or more. Buyer uses PAN (no TAN required); TDS deposited via Form 26QB. Non-compliance results in interest and penalties.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on account of section 14A of the Income Tax Act while computing books profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, addition u/s. 14A deleted and appeal of assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted since the said amount is already disclosed before Income Tax Settlement Commission. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that denial to allow the business loss stating the requirement of books of accounts to be audited is not justifiable since turnover during relevant period didn’t exceed the prescribed limit for getting books of accounts audited.
Understand Section 194S of the Income Tax Act on 1% TDS for Virtual Digital Asset transfers, including deductor rules, compliance, and filing details.
Section 194-IB mandates Individuals and HUFs to deduct 2% TDS on rent exceeding ₹50,000 per month. Know provisions, due dates, exemptions, penalties, and compliance for deduction, deposit, and filing under this section.
Section 194Q mandates 0.1% TDS by buyers on goods purchases exceeding ₹50 lakh from resident sellers if turnover crosses ₹10 crore. Learn key provisions, exemptions, compliance rules, and penalties.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 290-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting that the order was sent to an old email address and the officer’s illness caused genuine hardship.
The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
