DCIT Vs L & T Access Distribution Services Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) On the one hand, it is argued by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure of Rs.13.30 crores is for the purpose of setting up of the business of the assessee, but at the same time argued that […]
ITAT Jaipur held that equalization levy not applicable as role of the assessee is merely conduit between the entity carrying out the advertisement and Google. The ultimate benefit of such advertisement is not desired by the assessee.
DCIT Vs Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited (ITAT Hyderabad) It is a fact that the assessee supplies seeds to its distributors located in the states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and after the season is complete the sales distributors identify the stock of seeds of various varieties which are not sold by the end of […]
It is trite law, valid service of notice under section 148 of the Act is sine qua non for proceeding under section 147 of the Act. In absence of valid service of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act has to be declared as invalid.
Priyo Gopal Bishoyi Grandson Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) We find that Revenue has erred in comparing two accounting statements, which are un-comparable to each other because Revenue has taken book stock on the basis of Tally Software, whereas physical stock on the basis of ORIEL Software. It is also observed that ld. Assessing Officer failed […]
Whether assessee can claim deduction for provision of doubtful debts without giving adjustment in individual ledger account of sundry debtors?
Officers of department must not take advantage of ignorance of assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in claiming and securing reliefs,
Toshiba JSW Power Systems Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO had held that payment made by the assessee to non-resident towards cost of salary of seconded employees is fees for technical services as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per Article 12(4) of India & Japan DTAA and held to […]
Section 54 does not put any rider that deduction in respect of investment in acquisition of land appurtenant to building will not quality for exemption.
ITAT Bangalore held that before setting aside the matter the PCIT must have some material which would enable to form prima facie opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act not possible on guess work.
