Penalty under section 271D could not be levied on wife for receiving money from her husband for purchase of family property as practice of registering the property in name of the wife was guided by various family and societal factors besides encouragement of the Government for such transactions entered into by female members in the family by way of reduced stamp duty and she had offered reasonable explanation justifying the cash transactions
Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Conclusion- Cash deposited in bank was transferred to insurance company by way of insurance premium in the name of respective insurer – Assessee acted as facilitator and not the owner of the cash deposited in bank account – Addition not possible under section 69A. Facts- The assessee deposited […]
As own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of capital work in progress. A presumption can be drawn that the own fund is utilized in such capital work in progress. Therefore there cannot be any disallowance on account of interest expenses.
Firemenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that IS charges were paid by the assessee for obtaining access to ERP software and for regular recurrent services and such charges were paid in earlier years also. In AY 2012-13, similar adjustment proposed by Ld. TPO was deleted by coordinate bench on […]
IT support services availed by assessee-Indian company from foreign companies were standard connectivity and networking services could not be termed as technical services within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii) and therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such expenditures.
ICRW Group Gratuity Trust Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi) No denial of registration u/s 12AA to ICRW only because it benefited restricted group of employees unless full enquiry was made Conclusion: Registration under section 12AA could not be denied to assessee-trust merely because it was for the benefit of a restricted group of employees as […]
If the party who is seeking condonation of delay has not acted in malafide manner and reasons explained are factually correct then the Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and lean in favour of such party.
To categorize a particular amount as reimbursement, it is sine-qua-non that the expenditure should be incurred for and on behalf of the other. It envisages two cumulative conditions, viz., first that undiluted benefit flowing from the incurring of the expenditure is passed on, as such, to the other and the second, that the amount incurred is recovered as it is from the other without any plus or minus to that.
ESPN Star Sports Mauritius Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The appellant is a partnership firm established under Mauritius Law. It is engaged in the business of selling advertisement time and programme sponsorship from Mauritius in connection with the programming via non-standard television on ESPN, Star Sports and Star Cricket programming services. During the year under […]
DCIT Vs Niyati Construction Co. (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee has claimed that interest on Fixed Deposit, interest on SSNL Fixed Deposit and interest on SSNL Bonds was made out of surplus funds available with the assessee and the interest income was part of the business income. Therefore, the same was correctly included for calculating remuneration […]
