ITAT Ahmedabad held that the applicability of Section 14A is triggered when the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’ and by virtue of section 10(34) dividend income is not to be included in total income and is exempt from tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case municipal tax receipts are in name of land lord and ownership of flats are with society and taxes are borne by the society and collects proportionate taxes from flat owner. Then, municipal tax so paid is allowable as expenditure u/s 24 of the Income Tax Act.
Held that the transfer pricing provisions are not applicable to the assessee to the extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships where the income is taxed under Tonnage Tax Scheme.
ITAT Bangalore held that the share premium received by the company is in excess of fair market value of the share, the addition thus made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act is found to be just and proper.
ITAT Pune held that as the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the same was not converted into complete scrutiny, the scope of verification of AO cannot be extended to other issues/matter. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that the provision of section 194C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to work and not for purchase made which are liable for VAT. Hence, TDS u/s. 194C is not leviable as payments were made for purchase of material and not for any work contract.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act being issued mechanically by AO without going through the original assessment records and without verification of documents on records is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that there is no finding that interest bearing funds have been applied for purpose of making investment. Further, on account of sufficient availability of interest free funds, interest disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidences to justify the genuineness of the payments and therefore their mere non-attendance of summons, cannot be reason enough to disbelieve the genuineness of the transactions with them. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69C deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in absence of any malafide intention on the part of the assessee to claim excess deduction under section 32AC of the Income Tax Act.
