High Court faulted the Tribunal’s decision of reducing the penalty as a ‘way to bypass the minimum limit’ and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision
DCIT Vs. M/s. Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) it is duly noted that the assessee has submitted that the outstanding bonus was customary bonus and not filing u/s. 36(1)(ii) to come under the ambit of disallowance u/s. 43B(C). The assessee has quoted several case laws for the proposition that the customary bonus do not […]
Shilpa Shetty Kundra Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is observed that the assessee has already offered suo-moto disallowance of Rs.2.34 Lacs u/s 14A in her computation of income, which has been overlooked by the lower authorities. Another undisputed fact that emerges is that disallowance against average investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the […]
ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]
Where there was no dividend income earned during the relevant assessment year, there was no case for disallowing the expenditure relatable to dividend income.
E.I. DuPont India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO had taken the month to be the British calendar month as defined in Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act and it is only on that premise, he calculated one day in March and two days in May as two full months and calculated interest […]
The Delhi High Court in case of Bharti Mishra held that section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new property within three years from the date of transfer. However, the Act does not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of house property which may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset.
TDS u/s 194H was not applicable to bank guarantee commission as the same did not fall into clause (i) of Explanation to section 194H and exemption was provided under section 194A(2)(iiia) in respect of any payment made to any banking company to which any Banking Regulation applies.
Payments made to various artists participating in reality show would fall under section 194C and not under section 194J and there was no infirmity in the action of AO as assessee had rightly deducted TDS u/s 194C.
Since the nature of services rendered by non-resident professional showed that none of the services resulted in making available of any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know, how or process, therefore, professional fee paid to non-residents could not be subjected to TDS under section 195.
