Dr. Devika Gunasheela Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The only basis on which the assessee was denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was that the assessee owned more than two residential houses, other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset. From the order of assessment passed […]
Mitsui & Co. Ltd. Vs DDIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Delhi) Since the lower authorities following the orders of the preceding years have held that M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd. has been constituted as Dependent Agent PE of the assessee company in India, therefore, following the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in […]
Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance made by AO u/s 14A of the Act is justified in law? ITAT states that if the interest free funds available with the assessee is more than the value of investments, then the presumption is that the assessee has […]
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance u/s 14A is justified even if the bank had not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of earning the interest amount?
Jain Shwetamber Murtipujak Sukrat Fund Kaoda Committee Vs. CIT (ITAT Indore) On perusal of the record we find that the assessee trust was incorporated in the year 1945 and even in the Permanent Account Number (PAN) allotted by the Income Tax Department the date of incorporation of the trust is 16.4.1945. The assessee has claimed […]
DCIT Vs Manav Realty (ITAT Pune) It is evident from the reasons recorded by the AO that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was premised on the fact that the commencement took place at a date in variance with the one stated by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) has aptly recorded […]
ACIT Vs Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Yrs.2008-09 and 2009-10 vide order dated 08/07/2016 already held that AMP expenditure is not an international transaction and hence, no ALP adjustment could be made thereon. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we […]
Rashmi Jalan Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB is bad in law as the showcause notice issued by the Assessing Officer does not specify the charge/s against the assessee for levy of penalty, as required by law. Thus, on this ground, the penalty is quashed. Even otherwise, […]
DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of expenses made u/s.35D? ITAT states that, the assessee claimed deduction of preliminary expenses u/s 35D which was rejected by Ld.AO in terms of decision of Hon’ble Madras […]
Orion Property Management Services Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in making addition of Sponsorship and Promotional income by reducing it from marketing cost? In the instant case, the marketing income has been considered under the head marketing cost and net of expenses is debited to P&L […]
