ITAT Jodhpur held that addition on the basis of reasons not forming limited scrutiny is unsustainable as Assessing Authority cannot exceed the jurisdiction beyond the reasons specified for limited scrutiny.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of interest towards compromise agreement was not made towards any infraction of law and therefore, the same is allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of sales commission expenses justified as there was no basis and reason for paying the commission to these agents who even otherwise were closely related to the assesse.
ITAT Jaipur held that once the penalty is levied for non-maintenance of book of accounts, there cannot be further default for not getting the same audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that the interest awarded under Land Acquisition Act is not taxable, accordingly, tax on the same cannot be demanded by way of invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act cannot be computed by including disallowances made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
Shrijit Arvindrao Pawar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) rom mere reading of the assessment order, it would reveal that the Assessing Officer had not given reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143(2) on 18.11.2019, which was served on the appellant on 21.11.2019. The appellant also filed copy of the record of the […]
The issue involved in this case is whether the benefit of indexation is available on ‘advance payment’ made for acquisition of property or whether the benefit of indexation is available from the year of registration of purchase deed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in absence of FTS (Fees for Technical Service) clause in the India UAE Tax Treaty, payment for the FTS services cannot be taxed in India, unless it is established that the overseas company i.e. Oilstone UAE has a permanent establishment (PE) in India.
ITO Vs Dipen M. Desai (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has made payment of Rs.4,98,225/-to the Doctors as their professional fees and the same cannot be termed as referral fees. In fact, the ld AR at the time of argument submitted that the terminology of referral fees was wrongly interpreted […]
