Sale of prepaid sim cards / recharge vouchers by the assessee to distributors cannot be treated as commission / discount to attract the provisions of section 194H of the Act and hence there cannot be any obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source thereon and consequentially there cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
ITAT Surat held that AO already examined the issue and took a plausible view that addition should not be made. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable as order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee duly deducted TDS @2% u/s 194C Income Tax Act on payment of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Charges as provisions of section 194I of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to this payment.
ITAT Kolkata held that enquiring on issues other than limited scrutiny issue, before conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny, is against the procedure laid down in Instruction No. 5/2016 of CBDT dated 14.07.2016. Accordingly, assessment order is quashed as nullity and bad-in-law.
Siddarthini Nanda Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) A perusal of the show cause notice as also the satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order, clearly does not mention the specific notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act in respect of which non-compliance the penalty has been initiated. A perusal of the assessment order in all […]
ITAT Chennai held that AO duly verified the subject matter in re-assessment proceedings and concluded that LTCG declared by the assessee is genuine. Accordingly, setting aside the assessment order invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 on the same subject matter unjustified.
ITAT Allahabad held that passing an ex-parte appellate order without providing any opportunity even in case of faceless assessment proceedings unjustified as adherence to Principles of natural justice is one of the most important pillar of the effective judicial delivery system.
ITAT Chennai held that as computer and robotix kit is totally different, depreciation @15% and not @60% available on Robotix kits.
ITAT Amritsar held that non-receipt of intimation resulted into no action on the part of the assessee. Accordingly delay of 9 years condoned as the assessee had reasonable cause of non-receipt of intimation
ITAT Cochin held that as per condition mentioned in section 54F deduction is not available if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset. The same should be interpreted to mean ownership of residential houses in India. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 54F not deniable if assessee owns two residential houses in USA
