In order to carry out the charitable activities, the Chairman of the society needs accommodation otherwise he would have to be put in rented accommodation and hence the same eligible for benefit of section 11 and 12.
Where there were no incriminating materials found with respect to the disallowance of expenditure made by AO, addition could not be made under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Ms. Edelweiss Capital Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) From the record, we found that assessee was carrying out business of commodity trading on un-recognised exchange and also business of trading in shares. Assessee has claimed set off of loss arising out of trading in shares against the income arising out of trading in commodities. The […]
Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case the notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee which is not the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. As per Section 153A, simple notice has to be given to the assessee. Thus, the contention of the Ld. […]
AO was not justified in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee without specifying the grounds in the penalty notice as the same could not be construed as a mere technical error
Commission paid to non-resident agent was not liable to tax under the provisions of act when the services were rendered outside India, payments were made outside India and there was no permanent establishment or business connection in India, therefore, assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 195(2).
When TDS returns/statements had been filed by assessee for each quarter online and orders had been served upon assessee online for payment of the late fees, assessee was not justified in contending that it had not received any communication in respect of late fee imposed under section 234E neither any such communication came to the knowledge prior to the notice of outstanding demand issued by DCIT (TDS).
Sanraj Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, where both the assessment order and show cause notice failed to state the specific charge of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.20 […]
ACIT Vs Starflex Sealing India (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) i) Amendment to Sec.32(2) by Finance Act 2001 is applicable from A.Y.2002-03 and subsequent years. Therefore, unabsorbed depreciation from A. Y 97-98 upto A. Y 2001 to got carried forward to the A. Y.2002-03 and become part thereof’, ii) It came to the governed by the […]
Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Director of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee is liable to deduct TDS on the transponder fees paid to non-resident Facts – Assessee has leased transponder on satellites owned by Measat, Malaysia and rentals were paid to Measat on monthly basis. As per transponder lease agreement, taxes, if any, […]
