Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Mansha Textiles vs ITO case. ITAT allows interest deduction u/s 24(b) when income is receivable and approved.
Employer’s and employee’s contributions to PF are treated differently under the Income Tax Act. While the delay in employee’s contribution permanently negates the employer’s claim for deduction, the delay in employer’s contribution only results in the deferment of deduction under Section 43B.
Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Unity Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT case. Penalty under section 271C not applicable if TDS non-deduction supported by Form 15G/H.
ITAT held that in view of non-cooperation on the part of the assessee before lower authorities for verification of it’s own documents/ claims cost of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the assessee to be deposited into Prime Minister Relief Fund.
ITAT Mumbai held that shares held as investment is taxable under capital gain. The same cannot be treated as business income on the ground that the assessee was participating in the business of JMMSSPL and had had transferred the controlling/business interest.
ITAT Delhi held that once a matter has been considered and decided by the ld.CIT(A), the very same issue cannot be the subject matter of consideration at all by PCIT in the revision proceedings either on substantive basis or on protective basis. Accordingly, revision order quashed.
ITAT Indore held that excess stock was not kept separately and was part of business stock cannot be treated as deemed income u/s 69 or 69B of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable on the surrendered income on account of excess stock found during the course of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that tax authorities cannot assessee share premium amount under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition made u/s 68 is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from disaster recovery playout services and disaster recovery up-linking services are not in the nature of Fee for Technical Service (FTS) as envisaged under Article 12(4)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA(3) TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior to the date prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Accordingly, in present case, TPO order passed on 30/01/2015 instead of 29/01/2015 is non-est and liable to be quashed as being barred by limitation.
