Prohibition imposed by Indian Medical Council against acceptance of gift was on medical practitioner/doctor, and not on pharmaceutical companies, therefore, where assessee incurred expenditure towards gifts, which were bearing logo and name of the assessee, the expenditure were only for sales promotion, therefore, disallowance made by AO in respect of the expenditure was unjustified.
If at the time of giving the donation to the research Institute it had a valid registration granted under the Act, subsequent withdrawal of such approval with retrospective effect would not be a reason to deny deduction claimed by the donor under under section 35(1)(ii) for Scientific research expenditure.
Late Harbhajan Singh Makkar Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee had specifically asked for the cross-examination and if same was not given to the assessee, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee, as denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witness whose statements were made the sole basis […]
DCIT (International Taxation) Vs Qliktech International AB (ITAT Delhi) Right to use granted through licensing of a software does not fall within the meaning of “Royalty” as provided for in the domestic law or the DTAA. Any consideration for the same is not taxable as Royally under section 9(1)(vi) or the relevant DTAA. Thus what […]
ACIT Vs Siddhartha Bhargava (ITAT Kolkata) The issue under consideration is whether Cash deposits in bank account held as unexplained u/s 68 is justified? During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had produced bank account of the assessee in Punjab National Bank (PNB) and HSBC. On verification of the bank accounts, it was found that there […]
The issue under consideration is whether Passing of revisionary order against amalgamating company which was not in existence on the date of order is justified in law?
Deepak Petrochem Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.10.2002 declaring total loss at Rs.29,31,379/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the […]
Where assessee claimed that there was wrong credit entry by payer-client in Form 26AS, AO was required to examine its genuineness before making any addition on account of mismatch between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and in profit and loss account. Thus, matter was remanded for re-adjudication.
We find that in this case the assessment was framed by the AO after making ex-parte addition of Rs.16,54,146/-towards 100% of the bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can not be imposed. We are, therefore, setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.
ITO Vs. Ambika Metalchem Impex P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, we find that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus of proving the identity of the investors, creditworthiness of the transactions and genuineness of the transactions. Notices issued u/s 133(6) have been responded to. In such a scenario, the onus to […]
