DCIT Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (ITAT Delhi) The technical handling services rendered by the assessee to the other airlines in India held to be part of the business of the assessee from the operation of aircraft in international traffic. In DCIT vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [ITA No: 3819 /Del/2015, (A.Y. 2009-10) & […]
ACIT Vs M/s Agro Life Science Corporation (ITAT Kolkata) In the present case the amount of excise duty refund and interest subsidy was treated by the AO as revenue receipt subject to tax. The reason given by AO is that the impugned amount was given to assessee after the commencement of commercial Production. However, the […]
M/s. HDFC Securities Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) AO had made the disallowance as he was of the opinion that it was a prepaid expense and that it could not be claimed during the year under appeal, that the assessee had claimed the expenditure as per the provisions of AS-19, that the agreement entered into […]
Perusal of share holding pattern in current year clearly indicated that more than 51% of shareholding had changed, though within the group it remained the same, provisions of section 79 were attracted in assessee’s case and AO was justified in disallowing the claim of assessee.
ITAT held that If amended objects of the trusts are not non-genuine and charitable in nature, then mere failure on the part of the assessee to intimate this amended objects to the department would not goad the ld. Commissioner to cancel registration.
These two appeals, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 2135/Mum/2013 & I.T.A. No. 4896/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2009- 10 and 2008-09 respectively are directed against two separate appellate orders dated 22.01.2013 and 25-02-2015 respectively passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33
Mitchell Drilling India Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is elementary that the ALP is determined of an `international transaction’, which has been defined in section 92B of the Act. The term `transaction’, for the purposes of the Chapter–X containing transfer pricing provisions, has been defined in clause (v) of section 92F to include an […]
There is a mistake of getting the information through AIR which was collected by the appellant’s AR from bank. The transaction reported in the AIR was wrongly reported by the department. The AO should inform DGIT(System) to verify such information from the department server and correct it in future.
When admittedly there is no capital creation with the loan facilities availed of by the assessee, the working capital overdraft facility cannot be kept under the category of capital expenses, rather working capital overdraft facility is oftenly used to run day-to-day business
Whether penalty under section 271B of the Act could be levied in a case where the books of account were maintained by the assessee. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in that case held that where no account has been maintained, section 271B does not get attracted and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken.
