The ITO Vs Shri Radhey Shyam Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur) Once, there is an impending dispute between assessee and M/s. Laxmi Carpet Enterprises then it cannot be assumed that liability for payment has ceased
M/s Srivathsa Industries, Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in manufacturing leather and leather garments. In order to market its product in foreign countries, the assessee engaged agents and paid commission to them.
The ITAT Chennai held that payments made by the assessee in the nature of webhosting and marketing expenses to US based service provider could not be taxed as Fees for technology services because there were not transfer of technology involved in render of services such that the services could be continuously used by the Indian company without recourse to the service provider.
Cama Hotels Ltd, Vs DCIT (ITAT AHEMDABAD) When the assessee had furnished the PAN of the concerned depositors, the Assessing Officer ought to have made inquiry from the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to find out the current address of the depositors.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT that there is no human intervention involved in providing roaming services, therefore, roaming charges paid by the assessee do not amount to fee for technical services u/s 194J.
ITAT held in Pooja Industries Vs ITO that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied only because that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IC @ 100% instead of deduction u/s 80IB. Penalty could only be levied only
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. ACIT that any loss arising to banks on account of classification of securities form one category to another category in compliance with RBI directions is an allowable expense.
ITAT Pune held In the case of ACIT vs. RDS Construction Pvt. Ltd. that on the matter of adjustment of seized cash with the self assessment tax, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) since the assessee vide letter dated 30-03-2010
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services that section 80HHC does not place any restriction to shift the claim of deduction or exemption under any other provision in respect of profits for which no deduction has been claimed and allowed in the previous year.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that a careful perusal of provisions of sec. 132(4) as well sec. 292C would show that the said provisions state that the statement taken u/s 132(4) “may be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act”.
