ITAT Jaipur addresses tax rate dispute in Sadhwani Wood Products Pvt Ltd case, involving unaccounted cash sales and Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is not entitled for concession rate of tax of 20% provided under section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act on the short term capital gain computed under section 50 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat held that addition based on unsigned, undated and unstamped Satakhat/ sale and purchase agreement cannot be sustained since such document has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69B deleted.
On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. Addl/ JCIT (A), partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deduction under Section 80-IB/80-IE of the Income Tax Act disallowed on loan to employees and bank deposits as such interest income is not income derived from industrial undertaking.
ITAT Delhi held that bandwidth charges remitted by the assessee to foreign telecom service providers cannot be treated as royalty either under the applicable treaty provisions or u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, assessee not required to deduct tax at source.
ITAT Cuttack held that AO wrongly allowed the set off of brought forward loss and accordingly order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked.
ITAT Delhi held that it is proved that assessee doesn’t have any permanent establishment in India, during the year under consideration, accordingly, receipts classifiable as business income cannot be taxed in India.
ITAT Surat held that addition on account of cash credit in current year untenable since loan is received back in subsequent year and the same is accepted by the department. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal and passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) in absence of any response on behalf of the assessee untenable since CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merits.
