Advocate Amardeep Soni & Advocate Harsha Soni Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) A Case Study of ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’ Gemplus India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore [2010] 3 taxmann.com 755 (Bangalore – Trib.) Abstract: The practice of cost allocation and transfer pricing is integral to multinational corporations (MNCs) […]
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty order under section 272A(2)(e) of the Income Tax Act has to be passed within reasonable time. Since, the penalty order is not passed within reasonable time, the same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that denial of exemptions under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified as fees are charged by town planning authority to ensure accountability and fund public welfare initiatives, not to generate profit.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act for receiving fixed assets from sister concern on free of cost basis unjustified as no benefit is derived from the same. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
An employee should be employed for 300 days or more during the previous year should be applied cumulatively across the year of hiring and the following year, rather than restricting it to the first year.
ITAT Bangalore holds LTCG from Market Linked Debentures taxable at 20% under Section 112, rejecting concessional 10% rate under Section 112A. Assessee’s appeal dismissed.
Held that the invoices issued by the assessee contained a barcode. A barcode on a tax invoice serves as a verification mechanism, ensuring that the sale is recorded in the system and adds a layer of authenticity.
It was held that considering the provisions of CBDT Circular No. 1916 and the explanation provided by the assessee, the seized gold jewellery up to the specified thresholds for each family member should be treated as explained.
ITAT Bangalore sets aside CIT(A) order, allowing Mohammed Amer Ul Haq a fresh opportunity to present his case due to non-receipt of notices.
Bangalore ITAT rejects DVO valuation, upholds equal treatment for co-owners in capital gains case, citing Supreme Court precedent.
