AO had duly adjudicated the same on merits in the assessment order itself and hence there is no question of said claim of assessee getting rejected for not claiming the same by way of a valid return.
Though the co-operative banks pursuant to the insertion of subsection (4) to Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, but as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-operative societies, therefore, the interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Act.
As margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental Valuer was less than 10 percent and the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the lower authorities on this count cannot be sustained
Shri Parmod Kumar Sahai Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) No reopening permissible on basis of invalid enquiry made under section 133 without approval of competent authority when no proceedings were pending We have perused second paragraph of the assessment order which refers to the inquiry made by the Assessing Officer before issue of notice u/s 148 […]
Acuity Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the subject premise in respect of which the assessee has claimed the rental expenses has been taken on lease by the assessee. Though, in the leave and license agreement, it is mentioned that it has been taken on lease for the use of residence of directors/employees, […]
Section 206AA does not override provisions of section 90(2) and in case of payment made to non-resident, assessee correctly applied rate of tax prescribed under concerned DTAAs and not as per section 206AA because provisions of the DTAAs were more beneficial and DTAA acquired primacy in such case.
Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the assessee has offered Explanation as why the transaction of loss of security was claimed as business loss. This Explanation has not found to be false by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee substantiated the Explanation by way of filing relevant documents […]
Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation-2 to section 263 inserted by Finance […]
Commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders could not be treated as income taxable in India when parameters of DTAAs were applied to transactions in question. Also non-resident agents did not have PE or business connection in India. Therefore, impugned payment could not be held as taxable in the hands of non-resident agents in India and, therefore, liability to withhold tax under section 195 did not arise.
Assessee-pharmaceutical company was entitled to claim sales promotion expenses incurred on distribution of articles to the stockists, distributors, doctors etc and the same was not hit by the Explanation to Sec. 37(1) in view of circular issued by MCI and circular of CBDT vide Circular No. 5 of 2012.
