Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Appellant submits the in its own case for AY 2003-04, the Honourable Bangalore Tribunal has accepted that TP adjustment has to restricted to AE transactions. Further, in Appellants own case for AY 2013-14 [ITA No.2016/Bang/2018, dated 18.08.2021], the Honourable Bangalore Tribunal has upheld the action […]
ITAT reversed the demand under Section 200A attributable to merely wrong mention of TAN in the TDS deposit challan
Where delay in filing TDS statements occurred as employees of assessee-bank were not well acquainted with procedure of e-filing of TDS return and also the bank in near past switched over itself from old system to CBS system and the employees were getting acquainted with the new banking software; it constituted a reasonable explanation under section 273B and hence, penalty levied under section 272A(2)(k) was liable to be deleted.
Mansukh Timbadia Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) In this case scrutiny of entries of seized loose papers reveals that the transactions noted thereon were not genuine and have no evidentiary value for the reason no clear details concerning the AY consideration are ascertainable as rightly pointed by the ld. AR as it establishes estimations only. This […]
As the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, the incomes arising outside Indian Territories cannot be brought to tax.
ITAT held that payment made to non-resident without deducting the tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act does not arise.
Michael Page International Pte Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that unless the recipient of the services, by virtue of rendition of services by the assessee, is enabled to provide the same services without recourse to the service provider, the services cannot be said to have made available the recipient of services. A mere […]
Difference between stated consideration and guideline value is less than 10% as prescribed under 3rd proviso to section 50C(1), then there cannot be any addition by substituting full value of consideration.
Since the assessee is a company as is established by the 143(1) intimation, question of assessing its income under the head ‘salary’ does not arise. Impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that re-opening of assessment without ‘reason to believe’ simply based on the information from DGIT(Inv.) is untenable in law.
