Failure by the AO to offer cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon means that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee.
Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of section 56(2)(viib) invoked in the notice u/s. 263 by the ld. CIT is not applicable to the assessee company. As the assessee company was falling under section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being a company in which public are substantially interested. This […]
Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd Vs CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is settled position of law that the provisions of section 14A can be applied to quantify the expenses in relation to exempt income. Since the exempt income is Nil, section 14A will not apply. The Rule 8D can be applied only when there is difficulty in […]
CIT(A) has rightly quashed the assessment because the very foundation for issuance of notice under section 148 is the approval from the competent authority, i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax, and in the absence of such, such notice is void ab initio.
Once there was compliance to TDS provisions, even if there was short deduction of TDS or TDS had been deducted under different sections, there was no scope for AO to disallow expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) as provisions under section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only when there is no TDS deduction.
Deegee Software (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) As long as the ‘annual value’ of a property can be determined under 23, there would be no embargo, as regards claim of ‘interest on borrowed capital’ under section 24(b). Though a restriction as regards the quantum of deduction, is provided in the first proviso of section […]
Transaction charges paid to National Multi Commodity Exchange of India (NMCE) was clearly in the course of commodity business and thus, assessee was entitled to claim such expenditure as ‘business expenditure’.
When dumb documents like loose sheets of papers are recovered and revenue wants to make use of it, onus rests on the Revenue to collect cogent evidence to corroborate the noting therein. As AO failed to do so, addition made under section 153C was deleted.
The only change in facts is that there are divergent statements by way of affidavits from two Chartered Accountants, one in favour of the assessee and one is against the assessee. Except this the assessee has not brought out any records to prove its bonafide attempts made in filing appeal against the order passed by the AO.
Nivea India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) TPO had not brought on record the fact that AMP expenses incurred by assessee were not for its own business. The sole basis on which adjustment, under the head AMP expenditure, was made was that expenditure incurred by assessee was significantly higher than that of its comparable […]
