Background It is a matter relating to validity of re-opening of assessment on a technical ground in the case of Mayurbhai Mangaldas Patel v ITO. The learned Ahemdabad ITAT Bench has noted all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law as applicable in very clear manner. It has kept some issues open […]
In our opinion, for determining the income from the property, it should be rate of return on the investment of similar amount in another asset. Therefore, in our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) was fully justified in estimating the ALV on the basis of interest which assessee would have earned on the investment of the similar amount.
No scrutiny proceedings can be initiated if notice under section 143(2) is not received by assessee within the prescribed period.
A division bench of the Delhi ITAT, last week held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied if the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) was determined as per the scheme of section 92C in good faith and with due diligence.
ITAT held penalty under section 271D not leviable where cash loan was deposited without control and promptly refunded, citing absence of satisfaction and reasonable cause.
Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that loss derived from trading in derivatives carried out prior to 25/01/2006 cannot be treated as speculative loss and it should be treated as normal business loss under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently proclaimed that the provisions relating to TDS would not be applicable in case of interest paid to a Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFC) which is also engaged in business of insurance.
It is clear from the provision of section 115WB(2)(B)(i) of the Act that expenditure on food provided by the employer to the employees in an office or factory does not form part of the fringe benefit.
Challenging the orders dated 14/03/2014 and 14/07/2014 of the CIT(A)-14, Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeals for the above mentioned Assessment Years(AY.s). Assessee is a foreign bank and is providing banking services.
What has to be seen is the substance of the transaction. Considering the fact that the assessee had suffered loss while carrying out normal business activity i.e. selling its assets. Therefore,we hold that there was no justification for disallowing the loss suffered in the transaction.
