Assessee cannot be permitted to adopt a modus operandi and giving an accounting treatment to GST without passing through profit and loss account to circumvent provisions of section 43B
Bilfinger Neo Structo Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) As regards ground relating to Employees Welfare Expenses includible in value of Fringe Benefit Tax, the Ld. AR submitted that the details were properly filed before the Assessing Officer which were never taken into account by the CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer. Ld. AR further […]
DCIT Vs Analytical Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee submitted that there is no contravention of Section 269SS of the Act relating to the loan transactions made through banking channel, the same are availed by the Director and passed to the assessee company through ‘journal entry’ wherein penalty u/s. 271D cannot be levied. The ld. CIT(A) […]
Cowtown Software Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (TDS) (ITAT Mumbai) It is not in dispute that assessee made payment to Ad agency i.e. Social Kinnect. We find from the perusal of the agreement with Social Kinnect and scope of services defined therein, Social Kinnect would engage various professional artists for preparation and execution of the […]
Held that in absence of TDS certificate, assessee has to furnish any other evidence to support deduction of tax at source by the payer of income. TDS credit denied for failure to furnish any other supporting evidence
Held that if the parties are failed to prove the genuineness of entire transaction of such tainted purchases, the revenue authorities are not entitled to bring the entire transaction to tax. Authorities can tax the income component in such tainted transactions
Held that deduction from income claimed for payment made to a retired partners allowable as it amount to a diversion of income at source by overriding title.
Held that expenditure incurred in executing the project is an intangible asset which is eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act
Held that the assessee was not carrying on any share trading business, and it was the benami business of other assessee. Accordingly, denial of the claim of loss justified.
Held that deeming provisions of section 115BBE doesn’t apply as source of income clearly explained and established by the assessee
