ITAT Delhi, in a significant ruling, held that no addition can be made on unaccounted share capital if it has already been taxed under the category of ‘Source of Income’. Dive into the intricate details of the case: DCIT Vs Subhshree Investment Management Pvt Ltd.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition of advances received by the company as deemed dividend in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as advances are received from the concerns purely as business transaction.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in filing the return and Form No.67, beyond period under section 139(1) of the Act, is not fatal to the claim of FTC. Foreign Tax Credit duly available in respect of income taxable in India and received outside India for the amount of taxes paid outside India.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that making of incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that loss incurred on account of embezzlement during the course of day to day carrying out of charitable activities by the trust is revenue loss and duly allowable.
ITAT Lucknow sets aside additions made for cash deposits during demonetization in Shiva Goods Carrier Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, orders de novo proceedings under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that land was transferred to the builder/ developer at the time of execution of Development Agreement i.e. 18/01/2008 and accordingly, the same cannot be taxed in the year of agreement of sale i.e. A.Y. 2010-2011.
ITAT Chandigarh held that receipts of the assessee trust from its activities of sale of plots, flats and commercial booths and also its income earned form non-construction fee, transfer fee, penal interest and compounding fee, etc., are held to be entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO was correct in concluding that the rate at which loan is taken by the Appellant cannot be taken as internal CUP to benchmark the loan given by the Appellant to its AE as there is a difference in credit rating of the Appellant and its AE.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee failed furnish any evidences to prove that there are negotiations between assessee and AEs with regard to marketing strategy, sales targets, credit period, etc. Accordingly, TPO/AO has rightly bench marked payment of agency commission as ‘nil’.
