ITAT Ahmedabad upheld decision of CIT(A), ruling in favor of Nirma Limited. The nature of payments for vessel damage was deemed as reimbursement and capital in nature, not falling under Section 5(2) of the Act. The appeal by Revenue was dismissed, affirming the cancellation of TDS deduction on the payment of USD 4,50,000.
Ketan Tokershi Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Income belonging to firm whether disclosed or undisclosed can be taxed only in the hands of the firm and not in the hands of partner
The appeal challenges the order dated 14th June 2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue revolves around the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit on account of unsecured loans.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai’s remand of Nitin Amratlal Brahmbhatt’s case against ACIT-24(3) on the assessment order under Income Tax Act. Fair opportunity of hearing mandated.
Read the full text of ITAT Hyderabad’s order in Pennar Industries Ltd vs DCIT case for A.Y.2018-19. Unbilled revenue cannot be considered income once written off.
Case of Ilaben Bharatbhai Amin vs ITO, recently decided by ITAT Ahmedabad, delves into intricacies of calculating capital gains tax arising from sale of agricultural land that undergoes conversion into non-agricultural land before sale.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot exercise the power to enhance u/s. 251(1) where AO has not dealt with the issue and has not applied his mind on the taxability or non-taxability of a specific matter. Accordingly, exercise such power by CIT(A) will be beyond his jurisdiction.
The taxpayer vigorously argued that the disallowance was unwarranted as the supplementary partnership deed explicitly waived interest on capital and remuneration.
The key dispute centered around the disallowance of deductions under section 48(ii) of the Income Tax Act related to the indexed cost of interest paid for the acquisition of a property sold by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that broadcasting “Live events” does not amount to a work in which copyright subsists i.e., “Live Rights”, is not “copyright” and therefore any payment made thereto can’t be said to be chargeable to tax as royalty under section 9(1)(vi).
