ITAT Chennai held that non-deduction of TDS and reversal of TDS deduction on interest payment on the basis of declaration in Form No. 15G/ 15H is justifiable.
Ld. Sr. DR had raised an objection stating that issues relating to the ground of appeal taken in the present case falls under the exception clause contained in the said CBDT circular and, therefore, has to be heard on merit. To this effect, a report was called from the Ld. AO to make a submission as to how the present appeal is covered under the exception clause contained in the CBDT circular.
No addition could be made to an undisclosed contract receipt from the business of purchase and sale of fish as to some extent, the uniform rate of 8% available in Section 44AD applicable on some contractor was not to be applied on every time on every type of business. AO was directed to take an estimated income at 4% and credit of income disclosed by assessee was to be given
ACIT Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank (ITAT Indore) Provision for Standard Assets Allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) of Income Tax Act, 1961
ITAT Delhi held that as per partnership deep, partners shall be entitled to interest on their loan accounts with the firm at the prescribed rates, hence disallowance of the same is unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that based on suo motu disallowance, additional disallowance on travel expenses and foreign travel expenses unjustified.
ITAT held that if there is any incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, then adjustment is permissible. Here in this case, once the claim of deduction as per the law in not allowable, same can be disallowed in the intimation u/s 143(1).
GK Steel & Wire Products Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The main contention of the assessee is that the value of the opening stock of the assessee has gone down resulting in gross loss of Rs.25,32,724/-. The ld. Counsel submits that this is because due to rust stock and the sales realization was lower than the […]
Assessee is not a recipient but payer of loan. Hence, as per provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, assessee was not liable to tax
Assessees could not claim cost of improvement and indexation cost as assessee had to furnish some evidence and in the absence of any evidence or information, the information contained in the registered sale deed was required to be accepted.
