Shesh Dhar Chaube Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) AO alleged that assessee has not filed any declaration from the lorry owner with regard to the number of vehicles owned by them. In this regard sub-section (6) of Section 194C is relevant which provide for the condition as to providing such declaration from the lorry owners. It […]
Suminter India Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that When the overriding provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxations and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA) provide separate relaxations for the purpose of the legal obligations with respect to the filing of return vis-à-vis filing of other documents, to that extent, […]
As per section 49 of the Act, where the capital asset became the property of the Assessee on any distribution of assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family etc. etc. etc., the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the Assessee, as the case may be.
ITAT held that amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/ suppliers, as consideration for resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements are not payment of Royalty.
Held that cess forms part of the tax and the same cannot be allowed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 40(a)(ii) of the I.T. Act
Held that as per the agreement there was only permissible possession given to the developer and the same cannot be treated as transferred under section 2(47)(4).
Held that there was bonafide belief of the assessee that passing journal entries, even though in violation of mode prescribed u/s. 269SS and section 269T, is permissible. Entries done before judgement of Hon’ble Bombay HC in the case of Triumph International. Penalty deleted on the basis of reasonable cause.
Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. […]
Held that co-operative banks are liable to deduct TDS on payment of interest on time deposits only from 01.06.2015 and not before that.
Held that in the present case the approving authority has acted casually and granted the approval u/s. 153D in a mechanical manner without judicious exercise of power. According, approval granted u/s 153D was quashed and consequently the assessment order u/s 153A was also quashed.
