ITAT Delhi held that the social security, insurance, relocation expenses which are in the nature of committed and obligated payments are in the nature of reimbursements and not fee for technical services.
ITAT Delhi held that when debt is taken as part of receipts by the charitable trust, repayment of such debt would be accepted as application of income.
CESTAT Delhi held that the Deputy Commissioner is not empowered to issue an assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, after the goods have already been cleared for home consumption.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 68 with regard to deposit of Specified Bank Notes [SBN’s] it was clarified that every deposit during demonetization doesn’t fall under category of unaccounted cash. However, burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act is leviable on loan taken by way of cash. Notably, repayment of cash loan by way of cheque wouldn’t exonerate the assessee from levy of penalty.
ITAT Mumbai held that security charges involve supply of manpower only and the same does not involve carrying on of any work. Accordingly, provisions of section 194C are not attracted for expenses claimed as security charges. Hence, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unjustified.
DCIT Vs Yazdani International Pvt Ltd (ITAT Cuttack) ITAT Cuttack that expenditure towards various computer software and stationary and the expenditure towards upgradation of software for filing of return before the ROC and website design is revenue in nature and hence allowable. Facts- The revenue has challenged the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition […]
ITAT Delhi concluded that grants were given specifically for participation in a particular event held in abroad grant was utilized as per terms and conditions and it was not free for the assessee to use the funds voluntarily. Accordingly approval of CBDT under sections 11(1)(c) of the Act not required.
ITAT Chennai held that AO failed to verify the issue of trade discount in the light of provisions of section 194C-194H and hence the assessment order passed by AO is erroneous. Accordingly revisionary power under section 263 stand invocable.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not invocable for taking second opinion by Pr. CIT as the facts were already examined by AO.
