Tribunal held that human interaction is a necessary factor for the applicability of section 194J and in present case Assessee has to intervene and coordinate and liaise with Government Authorities for allotment of land by Government. Hence, provisions of section 194C is not applicable.
Gowtham Residential Junior College Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has declared income by way of rent received to the tune of Rs.2,06,66,410/- and treated the same as business income for the current year. The assessee has claimed expenses to the tune of Rs.88,51,069/- involving bank charges, repairs and maintenance, interest […]
Asessee claimed depreciation/amortization on Goodwill on the ground that it is a right in the nature of know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature being intangible assets.
Progressive Poultry Farm Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) As per provision of 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if any amounts are used for non-business purposes by the assessee, the same are to be disallowed. Since in this case, the partners have made drawings from the assessee firm and used for non business purposes, the […]
Superintendent of Jails Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) It is noted that the TDS quarterly returns were filed belatedly after 1/6/2015 ie., the date of insertion of section 200A by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f 1/6/2015. Therefore, on merits, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the late fees levied by the Ld.AO is […]
Prakash Mithalal Oswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is found that the reported income and the assessed income of the assessee remain same except for minor disallowance of expenses. The AO has imposed penalty only with reference to the amount of Rs.50.00 lakh and odd which was suo motu declared by the assessee in the […]
ITAT held that Assessee has vested right to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under the tax treaty, the same cannot be disallowed for mere delay in compliance of a procedural provision, that is ‘delay in filing Form No.67’.
Impugned Section 271(c) penalty has arisen in consequence to the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s section 54F deduction claim. And in assessee’s quantum appeal ITAT has already deleted the foregoing 54F disallowance and therefore, penalty in issue herein has no legs to stands as a necessary corollary.
It is settled position of law that merely because credit was outstanding for long time not lead to conclusion that sundry creditors are not payable
Madanthyar Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The notices in question were issued during the covid period and the Assessee’s contention that it could not respond to the notices in view of the pandemic situation has to be accepted as a reasonable cause. Facts- As there was delay in filing TDS statement, […]
