ITAT Bangalore held that as professional and consultation charges & purchase of fixed assets are capitalized in the books of accounts, it should not be considered for computation of proportionate TP adjustment.
ITAT Pune held that the conclusion arrived by AO on his satisfaction of details furnished by the assessee, cannot be found to be erroneous simply because Pr. CIT does not feel satisfied with the said conclusion. Accordingly, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore held that employees contribution has to be deposited within the due date under the relevant employee welfare legislation like PF Act, ESI Act etc. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) sustained because of non-deposit within relevant due date.
ITAT Chennai held that written off of irrecoverable advances given to company partakes the nature of business loss which can be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, delete additions made towards disallowance of written off of advances.
ITAT Pune held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 sustained as AO failed to apply proper and correct section of Income Tax Act to the investment in the undisclosed stock.
ITAT Delhi declined to condone the inordinate delay of 1005 days in filing of appeal in absence of sufficient cause for delay in filing of the same.
ITAT Delhi held that discounted cash flow method is the recognized method as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act read with rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules.
ACIT Vs Hotel Ishika (ITAT Raipur) ITAT Raipur held that the interest expenditure corresponding to the advances that was given in the normal course of business could not have been disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Facts- Post completion of original assessment, as is discernible from record, the A.O on the basis […]
ITAT Raipur held that amount received as a consequence of divorce from the ex-husband could not be held as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, and accordingly cannot be brought to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that any proceedings taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative. However, penalty order passed in the name of death person after his death is invalid.
