Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required to pass order on points of determination (grounds of appeals), decision therein on and reasons for such decision.
Sarabjeet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) The brief fact of the case that the assessee is a trader &filed his return u/s 139(1) by taking the benefit of presumptive scheme u/s 44AD of the Act. During the F.Y. 2010-11 related A.Y. 2011-12 the turnover was 15,50,000/- & declared total income of Rs.1,40,880/-. The notice u/s […]
DCIT Vs 3i Infotech Consultancy Services Limited (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that factoring charges incurred by the assessee company is not in the nature of interest and that the assessee was not under the obligation to deduct TDS as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. For this, we would like to […]
ITAT Chennai held that TPO unreasonably rejected the CUP method consistently followed by the assessee to bench mark international transaction with its Associated Enterprise as there was no change in the facts and circumstance of the case for the impugned Assessment Year.
Additions made on ad-hoc basis on estimation does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Amar Singh. Deletion of Rs. 2,23,000 addition under Section 69A. CBDT Instruction applied for demonetization period cash deposits.
ITAT Gauhati held that provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot apply since the liability is still payable to sundry creditor and had not been written off in the books of account and there is no evidence to indicate that said liabilities had ceased to exist.
ACIT (Exemptions) Vs Grow More Foundation (ITAT Ahmedabad) Regarding the payment made to Chandansingh, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the payment is made for construction work on which TDS has been deducted and a fresh confirmation with signature of the contractor and his PAN No. etc. have been submitted and the amount is incurred […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of expenditure in the assessment year 2012 on the reason that company went into voluntary liquation is unsustainable as the company was not into liquidation in the impugned year.
ITAT Delhi held that expenses paid to legal and professionals for an opinion about legal and tax consequences of the prospective investment cannot be considered to be a capital expenditure. Such expenses are revenue in nature.
