It is evident that the assessee had received cash amounts, but deposited in its Bank A/c which is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS. But like any other penalty, the operation of Section 271D with reference to the violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS also is not automatic.
ITAT Chennai held that renting of auditorium for the purpose of conducting guest lectures or topics to address the students is incidental to fulfilment of the object of the trust i.e. education. Accordingly, exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act available.
ITAT Pune held that surcharge or cess being part of income tax is not allowable as deduction under section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Medi Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd Vs ADIT (ITAT Rajkot) Held by the Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of [2023] 146 taxmann.com 3 (Rajkot – Trib.) Medi Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. V ADIT (CPC) that deduction u/s 80P could not be denied only on the basis that assessee did not […]
Hotel Deepak Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The brief facts are that the assessee firm is engaged in the restaurant business. Pursuant to the survey action u/s.133A of the Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee dated 22.01.2018, the partner of the assessee firm Shri Chandrakant Ramanna Shetty made a voluntary declaration of Rs.26,27,872/- […]
Once no TDS is liable to be deducted on these purchases, no disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia) of the I.T. Act can be attracted. Hence, we delete this addition.
ACIT Vs Cellbiz Services (ITAT Kolkata) CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that the cash book, purchase register and all individual invoices where cash transaction had taken place have been thoroughly checked and it is found that not a single such transaction actually exceeded the threshold limit of Rs.20,000/-. In view of the aforesaid factual finding given […]
ITAT Delhi held that addition of difference between the share valued by the company and value determined as per IT Rules sustained as the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proof.
ITAT Delhi held that adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction is unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA (3A) of the Income Tax Act Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is required to pass an order within a period of 60 days prior to the date of completion of assessment as per section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Order passed after the date will be barred by limitation.
