Prity Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Coming to the next issue of sales promotion and advertisement expenses, we note that despite several queries and opportunities made available by the authorities below, the assessee has not been able to establish the nexus between the expenses incurred and the business of the assessee. Assessee has […]
Recording of reasons before initiation of reassessment proceedings & communication thereof to assessee is sine qua non that goes to root of matter
No disallowance forzdelay in payment of employees’ contribution for provident fund, based on mere Tax Audit Report
Shri Palanisamy Chinnasamy Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) In this case, The assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 144(1)(b) of the Act by making addition of ₹.5,34,000/- under section 69A of the Act on the ground that the money received from the customers on various dates in old notes cannot be accepted a genuine as […]
Non-filing of Audit Report in Form 10B along with Return of Income is merely a procedural defect which is rectifiable. If the Audit Report was available with the assessee at the time of filing of Return of Income and was not filed due to bonafide reasons the benefit of exemption under section 11 cannot be denied if otherwise assessee is eligible to claim the same.
Bodycare Creations Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that the assessee has successfully demonstrated that the return of income filed by it has been subjected to provisions of Section 92E of the Act and consequently the due date available to the assessee is 30th November, 2017 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 in question in […]
Held that rectification application u/s 154, after ROI being processed u/s 143(1)(a), for any typographical/ technical mistake reflected higher income than real income should be accepted by AO to verify the correctness of the total income of assessee
Held that persons who have given loan are not present at their address which clearly shows the lack of genuineness of the transactions. Receipt of the amount in their bank accounts immediately before giving the loans further cast doubt of the creditworthiness.
Held that foreign travel directly relating to securing the capital investment in the assessee’s business is capital in nature. Accordingly, such expenditure is not allowable expenditure u/s 30 to 38 as expenditure is not laid down wholly and exclusively for day to day operation of the assessee’s business.
Section 194A provision provides that obligation cast under Section 194IA is qua each transferee and not qua aggregate consideration.
