Explore the ITAT Chennai order in ATC (Assam) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO-TDS for AY 2016-17. Key issues include TDS on rental payments, interest imposition, and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
ITAT Mumbai held that Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of guarantee commission was determined at the rate of 0.3523% instead of 1.25%.
ITAT Mumbai held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head “business income” and there is no justification in estimating the rental value from those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under section 263 of the Act.
ITAT Pune held that initiation of revisionary proceedings under section 263, based only on the proposal sent by AO for making revision, lacked jurisdiction and hence revisionary proceedings liable to be set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s. 2(22)(e) towards amount received by shareholder company treating debit balance as deemed dividend unsustainable as debit balance was only because of an inadvertent error and the same was squared off within short period.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of expenditure owing to suspension of business unsustainable as there is nothing on record to show that assessee has completely abandoned or closed the business forever by disposing of its assets and going into liquidation.
ITAT Delhi held that donations received cannot be considered to be anonymous donations under section 115BBC as details i.e., name, address, PAN, amount of donations of donors provided and not proved to be wrong.
ITAT Delhi held that amount advanced to subsidiary companies out of commercial expediency, accordingly, disallowance of interest claimed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that only the mistake apparent from record which can be rectified but where two views are possible or there is a debate available, it cannot be rectified u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that revision order u/s. 263 unjustified and liable to be quashed as no findings which proves that there is a violation of the proviso to provision of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, exemption u/s. 11 rightly claimed.
