Prakash Babu Nakundhi Krishna Reddy Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee that there are withdrawals and deposits in the cash book and the source of deposits can be explained by the Assessee with supporting evidence. It was submitted that it is an accepted rule that a […]
Shilpa Medicare Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Provisions of Sec. 35(2AB) of Income Tax Act, nowhere suggest simply that R& D facility is approved from particular date and in other words, it is no where suggested that date of approval only will be cut off date for eligibility. The court further held that once facility […]
DCIT Vs Hero Fin Corp Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee is earning lease rent from the lease charges of cars, plant & machinery given on hire to M/s Hero MotoCorp. The AO held that the income of the hire charges are to be chargeable under the head “income from other sources” but not under the […]
Amount of income which qualifies for deduction is the profits of the business of the undertaking and not any income earned by assessee de hors the business of the undertaking. If the relevant items of income are held to be falling under the head `Income from other sources’, the same will not qualify for deduction under sectio 10A, 10AA.
Where AO had estimated value of accommodation entries devoid of any documentary evidences or material, the same could not be sustained. Since in the case of the assessee the payment of Rs.6,43,406/- was considered as accommodation entries and it was noticed that assessee had not reconciled this payment with outstanding amount of Rs.7,91,406/- as per invoice raised for labour charges, therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of Rs.6,43,406/-.
Dinesh Chandra Dutta Bhargava Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra) The only question to be adjudicated in the instant case is whether the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54/54F of the Act in the attending circumstances of the case or not and whether the changed legal position of section 54, as noted by ld. CIT(A), is […]
Where the assessee diverted borrowed funds towards investment in a company but did not collect any interest on money so invested then the AO was justified in making the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital particularly in view of the fact that the assessee failed to prove that there was any commercial expediency in making the investment that company.
Amadeus India challenges ITAT Delhi’s transfer pricing adjustment on AMP expenses and disallowance under section 14A. Full text of the ITAT order provided.
Atul Dinesh Seth Vs ITO (ITAT Bnagalore) The contention of the A.R. is that once the income of the assessee estimated by applying the section 44AF of the Act, there cannot be any further addition for any lapse in the books of accounts. In these assessment years, except AY 2011-12, the turnover of the assessee is […]
Yokogawa India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bnagalore) Admittedly the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld.AO under section 143 (3) read with section 144C is in violation mandatory provisions under section 144C(10) and (13) of the Act by not passing the order in pursuance of and in conformity with the directions of DRP issued under […]
