Any order of the subordinate authority which could have been considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in allowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IA, either due to lack of enquiry or otherwise, was the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and not the re-assessment order. PCIT had proceeded to revise the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 to get over the hurdle of limitation which was impermissible.
ITO Vs Shri Udaykumar D. Bhatt (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 271(1)(c) cast responsibility upon the AO to reach the clear finding with respect to levy of penalty under the specific charge and if the AO fails to do so then the penalty cannot be levied as such penalty order shall not be maintainable in the eyes […]
ACIT Vs Krishan Lal Madhok (ITAT Delhi) A.C.I.T. on the basis of information received from the Government of France under the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention wrongfully assumed that Shri Krishan Lal Madhok was earning an interest at the rate of 4% from his foreign Swiss Bank account, thereby included the same in his income while […]
Informatica Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has sold software products and also received income for providing support services. He submitted that providing ancillary support services is also related to sale of software products only. He submitted that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics […]
DCIT Vs Board of Cricket Control in India (ITAT Mumbai) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has challenged correctness of the order dated January 09, 2019 passed by CIT(A) quashing the reassessment order passed by the Appellant without issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), for the assessment year […]
Inflow Technologies Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee, as a part of share purchase agreement, during the business structuring had given a corporate guarantee to one of its group supplier CISCO for supplies made to its AE (Inflow Singapore). According to the assessee, it did not intend to get any remuneration for the […]
Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT (LTU) (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee did not object to inclusion of this company before the TPO but objected to inclusion of this company before DRP. The DRP did not adjudicate the objection. In these circumstances, we are of the view that exclusion of this company from the […]
ITAT- Held that, benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the IT Act cannot be denied to the Respondent merely on the ground that conveyance deed has not yet been got registered particularly when the Respondent is proved to be in possession of the property in question out of which the Respondent was already owner in possession of 1/3rd share since 2008 after making a complete payment of the sale consideration to the vendors and has duly proved possession over the property by way of electricity and water charges bills.
Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts : Addition on account of employee’s contribution to ESI and EPF – CPC while processing the return of the assessee disallowed the claim of employee’s contribution towards ESI and EPF on account of delay in depositing the amount as per the respective statutes Held: Respectfully […]
Emil Pharmaceutical Industries Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case learned CIT(A) has noted that the assessee has not produced supporting documents such as the list of employees at the time of the sale, electricity bills and other details necessary to establish the existence of an undertaking in a continuous business. Furthermore, we […]
