ITO Vs Ajay Raj (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the notice u/s 143(2) served on wrong address is sustainable in law? ITAT states that, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the address at “85, Kumharon Wali Gali, Village Khampur, Delhi” which was not served on the assessee whereas […]
ITAT states that, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the AO made the addition by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act which are applicable to the expenses considered to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods/services or facilities for which the payment is made.
Once assessee has provided a reasonable explanation about ownership of account, then the onus was on the Assessing Officer to establish that the account belongs to the assessee. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Company Limited wherein, it was held that where prima-facie inference on facts is that the assessee explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue.
The assessee has sold the goods to the Associated Enterprise on principal to principal basis and has received sales consideration. The royalty is payable on the basis of the goods manufactured. Accordingly, addition made by the AO/TPO by determining the arms’ length price of royalty on exports to the Associated enterprise at ‘NIL’ is deleted.
Since there was no material to infer that client code modification had been done by assessee with malafide purpose of shifting of the profit or evasion of the tax hence, assessment could not be reopened under section 147 in absence of any tangible material to infer that income escaped in the case of assessee.
Since assessee association was providing laboratory test services and consultancy services in accordance with its charitable objects, therefore, activities could not be held to be rendered in relation to any trade, commerce or business as such activities were undertaken by assessee association in furtherance of its main objects which were undisputedly of charitable nature and which was not an activity of trade, commerce or business with main object of earning profit. AO was directed to allow exemption under section 11 and 12 with consequent benefits to assessee.
ACIT Vs Thermax Limited (ITAT Pune) Revenue has not doubted the genuinity of the return filed by the assessee and has not said that the particular of expenses claimed in the return were not correct. The expenses were claimed and quantum additions have been upheld by the Tribunal. However, in the separate proceedings of penalty […]
ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the present case the assessee has incurred the expenses on account of club membership fees for the employees and to entertain customers, so, these were business expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. ITAT Follows Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CIT Vs. United […]
Steria (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ground number 11 is with respect to the disallowance of management services fees for non-deduction of tax u/s 40 (a) (i) of the act amounting to ₹ 206,044,024 incurred on account of management services fees, held to be fees for technical services on which tax deduction at source […]
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in confirming the enhancement of disallowance made by the AO over and above the amount disallowed by the assessee u/s 14A of the Act?
