Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO noticed that assessee had made assessment of electricity duty of Rs. 5,52,98,00,000/- of which Rs. 3,44,22,00,000/- was adjusted from the subsidy and the balance amount of Rs.2,08,76,00,000/-was not paid by the assessee before filing the return of income. Assessee was asked to justify as to […]
DCIT Vs Rajamannar Thennati (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee was employed with Sun Pharma Advance Research Co. Ltd. as whole time director of the company with maximum salary of Rs. 3.5 crores as per the resolution passed in the annual general meeting of the company dated 31st July, 2012. Since there was limit for payment of […]
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance made by AO u/s 14A is justified in law? In view of the fact that no proper satisfaction was recorded, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer did not acquire any valid jurisdiction for computing disallowance u/s 14A.
The issue under consideration is whether DRP is correct in considering the Liaison Office (LO) and Land Earth Station (‘LES’) constitutes a permanent establishment (PE) in India?
The issue under consideration is whether disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) made by AO forming an opinion that interest bearing funds were withdrawn from the firm being capital withdrawn by the partners and interest free advances is justified in law?
Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee is a non-resident banking company which carries on the business of banking and other related activities through its branches in India in accordance with the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. During the year, Indian Permanent Establishment (in short PE) of the assessee bank in […]
Disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D could not exceed tax free income earned by assessee. Therefore, AO was directed to restrict disallowance made on account of the common administrative expenses to the amount of exempt dividend income actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in disallowing the provision for warranty of mobile phone merely on the basis of improvement in technology is justified in law?
Arun Kumar B M Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is required to invest Rs.50 lakh in REC Bonds in any financial year. The Assessing Officer also relied on the amendments made to section 54EC of the I.T.Act vide Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Assessee has filed this appeal before […]
Explore Angul Sukinda Railway Ltd. vs ITO case. ITAT Cuttack decision on interest treatment for FDR and Flexi deposits. Full judgment details here.
