ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of expenditure towards helper allowance claimed as deduction u/s. 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act rightly sustained as no supporting documents submitted.
Deduction under Section 57 was allowable on the cost of funds and proportionate administrative expenses for earning interest income to the extent of Rs.9,05,550/-.
ITAT Delhi held that incentive / subsidy given by state Governments on account of development of new Multiplexes in the state is capital receipt.
ITAT Kolkata held that education cess is not allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening after expiry of 4 years, without establishing any failure on part of the assessee to disclose any material facts necessary for its assessment, is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
No TDS under Section 192B on payments made to consultant doctors and retainer doctors as the provisions of section 194J applied to the retainer-doctors and not those of section 192B after noting differences between the two types of agreements i.e. salaried doctors and doctors appointed on retainership basis and the certain clauses in contract with retainers which gave the erroneous impression to AO of creating an employer-employee relationship had been explained by assessee that they did not create such a relationship.
While granting relief to NTPC, the proceeding under Section 263 could not be initiated on account of income received from the fly ash and cenosphere as in view of the notification of the Government the fly ash fund transferred to NTPC Ltd.
Salary received by a Non-Resident of India (NRI) in India by exercising employment in Singapore should not be taxed in India as assessee would be entitled for the benefit of Article 15 of relevant DTAA which provided that the salary would be taxable in the country wherein the employment was exercised and the same would be subject to verification by AO that this income had already been offered to tax in Singapore and assessee had paid due taxes. AO would also verify that no credit of Taxes paid in India had been taken by assessee in Singapore.
Since assessee had deliberately not avoided TDS and there was no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty was not leviable for not deducting TDS on foreign remittances.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere charging of guarantee fees for services by the assessee trust ipso facto is not sufficient to invoke the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, that too without establishing that the object and purpose of the assessee is profit motive.
