TDS credit was allowed as the commission income was not managerial service under India Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has accounted interest expenses twice of Rs. 11.90 crores, therefore, the same was disallowed and also levied penalty of Rs. 1,46,48,271/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act on the combined amount of disallowance u/s. 14A and […]
Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Vs ADIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case The CIT(A) had denied the benefit of lower tax rate u/s 115BAA of the I.T. Act for the reason that the assessee has not filed the return of income on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act. In this […]
Assessee in respect of premium paid to insurance company could not be brought to tax subject to the fact that assessee should not avail deduction u/s 80C of Act in respect of premium paid towards that insurance policy.
In this case AO has not applied his own mind before issuing notice and to arrive at conclusion that assessee has escaped an income and made addition on the basis of report submitted by Investigation Wing. So, Learned AO issued notice purely on borrowed satisfaction. In our considered opinion, in such case addition cannot be made.
Information received from Directorate of Income tax (investigation) cannot be considered to be information received from an external source.
Books were never rejected by Assessing Officer and thus business loss cannot be disallowed without taking cognizance of all relevant aspect of matter
Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Whether Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in conferring the interest of Rs.12,31,304/- under section 234C of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the book profit includes capital gain income which arose in 4h quarter therefore the liability to pay advance tax arise only on […]
Asha Devi Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, limited scrutiny was to be done for verification of cash deposits and the source of cash deposits from the safe custody account is not examined by the AO by calling for relevant details from the assessee. The AO ought to have examined the same to […]
Compensation so received by the assessee company would only go to reduce the cost of project as it is effectively meant to cover up for the expenses and investments incurred by the assessee for the said project. Hence, the receipt of compensation would be capital in nature and would go to reduce the cost of project.
