Techna Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT held that in this case Since the ld. Assessing Officer has already decided the issue with regard to the applicability of rate of tax, no further dispute remains pending with the ld. CIT(Appeals). In case, ld. CIT(Appeals) wanted to change the colour of litigation or character […]
Kamal Jafferali Wadhwania Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 194I is applicable only in case of rent may be on plant and machinery (@ the rate of 2%) and for the use any land or building or land appurtenant to a building. In this case assessee is paying a rent/lease charges for the office premises which […]
Fidelity Diagnostics P. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to allowability of referral fees paid to doctors and nursing home by the appellant company. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the payment of referral fees to doctors and nursing home would amount to violation of the provisions […]
Ajashy Engineering Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income. Admittedly in the matter, the Revenue had not contended that the assessee has deposited the contribution after […]
In present facts of the case, the ITAT observed that proceedings under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained if the tax payer had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
Assessee, a retired bank employee earning pension, deposited Rs.15 lakhs cash in his bank account on 13.11.2016 which he explained as withdrawal on 13.10.2015 or a perceived need and kept the cash with him and the very same cash was deposited . AO rejected the explanation for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the perceived need for which cash was withdrawn holding that no prudent person would keep cash and lose interest if he deposits the money in FD. AO treated the cash deposit u/s 69A. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment beyond four years period is invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that that the salary paid by the head office to expatriate employees working in Indian branches is allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition of investment made in India by tax resident of UAE is unsustainable as in terms of Indo UAE tax treaty, the right to tax the income doesnt belong to India.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that investment made in gold ornaments was duly recorded in the books of accounts and also reflected in the block of assets. Hence, such investment cannot be stated to be remained unexplained.
