Expenditure on maintenance, back-up and support services to existing hardware and software is revenue in nature, and therefore allow the expenditure as revenue in nature.
ACIT Vs Durga Granites (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT held that if the partners of the assessee-firm had introduced the cash in their respective books and thereafter transferred the same to the books of the assessee firm then probably the onus may be on the partners of the assessee firm to establish the source of the cash […]
Netra Software Technologies P Ltd. Vs ACIT (CPC) (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the assessee has not enclosed any evidence along with the return suggesting completion of construction of commercial building and its readiness to let out, as such the ACIT(CPC) denied the interest claimed by the assessee by way of intimation sent to the […]
When there was no clear documentary evidence to prove the identity of the assessee the burden of proof lies on him claiming the benefit of being the assessee.
ITAT held that as the assessee by placing on record the aforesaid documentary evidence had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it, therefore, the A.O without dislodging the same on the basis of any material and/or evidence could not have held the amounts therein received as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act.
Assessing Officer can make `other addition’ in the reassessment proceedings, provided, the `foundational addition’ is made. When this proposition is taken to a next level, no different consequences will emerge, if the `foundational addition’ is itself finally deleted in an appeal.
Since the R&D facilities for which the assessee incurred costs outside India are neither of the assessee nor approved by the prescribed authority, there can be no question of granting any weighted deduction on the expenses incurred outside India.
Law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him.
Merely because a person has not deducted tax at source from a remittance abroad, it cannot be inferred that the person making a remittance has committed a failure in discharging his tax withholding obligations because such obligations come into existence only when recipient has a tax liability in India.
It is well settled that any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act.
