ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years without any tangible material amounts to change of opinion and according the same is invalid and liable to be quashed.
Explore critical judgment of ITAT Hyderabad in DCIT Vs Vessella Constructions concerning revenue recognition and sale of villas. Gain in-depth insights.
Analyzing the recent ITAT Jaipur ruling on Safiq Ahmad Vs ITO. Assessee penalized for failing to cooperate in penalty proceedings under Sections 271B & 271(1)(c) of the Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of cash towards purchase of land exceeding the prescribed limit is duly disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax deduction at source doesn’t apply to service which are neither availed nor rendered and not even utilized in India. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that on execution of agreement when the possession was also handed over, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) and (vi) was complete and accordingly capital gain provisions gets applicable.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case of company is involved in providing illicit LTCG/ short term capital loss (accommodation entries), a substantial addition has to be made in the hands of beneficiaries and only a protective assessment can be made in the hands of company providing such accommodation entries.
ITAT Delhi held that attribution of profit from offshore supply and services to the Permanent Establishment unsustainable as assessee didn’t have any Permanent Establishment in India in the assessment years under dispute.
Assessing Officer’s claims on the irregularity of additional salary payments are unfounded, says ITAT. When payments are made via cheque and duly recorded, there’s no reason to treat them as ‘outside the books.’ The assessee provided evidence that these are year-end calculations, not fictitious transactions. The additional salaries are legitimate and shouldn’t be interpolated for 12 months.
ITAT Mumbai held that Nostro Account Maintenance Charges are in the nature of bank charges levied on transaction and the same are not subject to tax deduction at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance of the same by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act unjustified.
