Basic fact that assessee is not eligible for filing return of income was not taken into account and therefore, there was no application of mind while recording reasons for reopening.
It goes without saying that in the absence of enabling powers, no disallowance can be made. As such, enabling provisions being absent, the CPC did not have the jurisdiction to make the disallowance in question, in the order u/s 143 (1) of the Act.
If depreciation as per Income Tax Act is taken into account then the accumulated profits of the assessee would be working out to be in negative meaning thereby that there are no accumulated profits for Section 2(22)(e)
Mahesh Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The crux of the issue is that the assessee has filed the appeal manually but simultaneously not filed the appeal electronically. Hence, ld. CIT(A) treated the manual appeal filed by the assessee as non est and dismissed the same. Assessee had already filed the appeal in paper form, however […]
Umano Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed before him. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to the order sheet entry (page 10-11 of Paper Book) made by the Ld. AO to emphasis that the adequate opportunity to present […]
ITAT held that the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS by the assessee u/s 201(1A) r.w.s. 206C(7) of the Act cannot be held as penal in nature and, thus, incurred out of commercial expediency and, therefore, is allowable u/s 37 of the Act.
AO even after knowing about death of assessee, framed assessment in the name of Deceased which is bad in law and so assessment is annulled
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as assessee claimed the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to the interest income under a bonafide belief.
ITAT Mumbai held that dividend declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder will attract Additional Income Tax (Tax on Distributed Profits) referred to in Sec.115-O of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA.
ITAT Bangalore held that distribution fees paid by Google India Private Ltd. (Google India) cannot be treated as DAPE (Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment) of Google Ireland Ltd (Google Ireland). Accordingly, distribution fees paid by Google India to Google Ireland doesn’t attract TDS u/s. 195.
