Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that advance given by a company to its Director/ substantial shareholder cannot be considered as deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Rule 17 of order V of CPC mandates that an independent local person be the witness of service through affixture and for the purpose of having been associated with the identification of the place. However a perusal of the affixture report shows that there was no independent local person as a witness and there is no evidence that anyone identified the place as belonging to the assessee before such affixture.
While dismissing a departmental appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G bench held that the State Bank of India (SBI) s not bound to deduct tax at source on site restoration fund of ONGC and the interest paid on such fund.
After the slump price has been attributed first to the value of tangible assets, then the balance is to be attributed to intangible assets and once the same is done and whether it is under the umbrella of know-how, trademarks, patents or goodwill, it makes no difference since all these are covered under the umbrella of intangible assets, which are eligible for claim of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
The Jaipur bench of ITAT comprising Vijay Pal Rao (judicial member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (accountant member) recently held that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) restricting amenities to doctors is
Vinita Ranka Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the bank transactions including the deposit in the bank and outward transaction are more than Rs. 4 Crores. The assessee then filed revised computation of income and admitted the turnover of more than Rs. […]
The New Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on yesterday ruled that the amount received as subsidy from the State Government under Capital Investment subsidy is not taxable under the Income Tax Act as it is capital in nature.
Section 273B of the Act provides that in case of a reasonable cause, penalty otherwise exigible, inter alia, u/s 271C of the Act, cannot be imposed.
We are of the view that in the absence of any direct nexus between expenditure claim to the exempt income, the assessing officer cannot invoke the provisions of section 14A row with rule 8D(2) to disallow expenditure.
Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee.
