In the cited case, ITAT directed AO inter-alia to include installments received on sale of various houses and flats under hire purchase agreement and at the same time allow corresponding expenditure which has been expended by the assesses in cash (including through cheque).
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that since the payments have been made as reimbursement of expenses to the agents of the appellant, therefore, appellant was not obliged to deduct TDS under section 194C of the Act and as such, no disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act.
ITAT held that (i) International recruitment service operations conducted from STPI, Noida are held to be eligible for benefit of deduction u/s 10A. (ii) The deduction of payment of employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESI cannot be disallowed under section 43B
In the case of Tecnimont ICB House vs. DCIT, ITAT has held that Recovery of expenses beyond the normal period was in the nature of deemed loan in the hands of AEs and require transfer pricing adjustment.
The ITAT Lucknow in the case of Sharad Mishra vs. ITO held that the arrival of assessee in India at night cannot be treated as his stay for the complete day. Thus, the actual hours of the day stayed only could be counted as stay in India on that day.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of M/s Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Inds. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) has held that this position in law is well-settled. After 1st April, 1989
The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture of pre-engineered building system products. During relevant year, assessee entered into international transactions with its AE situated in Kuwait.
CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 on subject of monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable on pending cases also- ACIT Vs. Suncity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT DELHI)
In the case of Shri Barjinder Singh Bhatti vs. ITO ITAT has held that in absence of not having any evidence or material before him to contradict the report of the Registered Valuer, AO cannot reject valuation report of Registered Valuer.
No effort or any arguments have been advanced by the Revenue to justify that the expenses were unreasonable and excessive. In the absence of any justification for making a 5% disallowance of the total expenses for royalty
