Karur Jayaprakash Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We notice that the CIT(A) in his order has admitted the fact that the assessee’s representative for the first time produced various details on 21.06.2010 (page 4 of CIT(A)’s order). The CIT (A) has infact verified these evidences but had rejected the same merely on the ground that these […]
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that fees paid by the assessee (HAL) to CGTM France for Payment for Flight Testing Services which includes (i) Air intake Survey (ii) Engine bay, FACEC bay and oil cooling systems (iii) Engine Accessories and FADEC vibrations (iv) Measurement of gas concentration of fire extinguishing systems […]
ABB Limited Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Bangalore) Learned AR has given a table, wherein it is claimed that excess payment of advance tax for the 1st and the last quarter has been ignored while calculating interest u/s 234C of the I.T. Act. ITAT directs A.O. to examine the correctness of the claim of the assessee […]
Plivo Communications Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is ‘for the removal of doubts’ cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it […]
Avijit Dewanjee Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that as the assessee has not ascertained the loss on account of embezzlement of cash in the books of account and it is shown as sundry debtors suspense account without charging it to the P&L account. At this stage, it is not possible to hold that it […]
Amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(via) and 43B is only prospective in nature and not retrospective and the same to be effective from 1-4-2021 and will apply for and from the assessment year 2021-22 onwards.
Prism Networks Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DRP has not considered the plea of assessee in proper perspective. The fact that the TPO rejected the TP Study of the Assessee cannot be the basis not to consider the claim of the Assessee for inclusion of comparable companies. The […]
Methods (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case there is no dispute that the assessee made payment of the Employees share of PF/ESI on or before the due date for filing return of income for AY 2017-18 u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment […]
Income from contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) in respect of such income.
Sri. Yeruva Prasad Vs ACIT/DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The amended provisions of section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act are not applicable for the assessment years under consideration i.e. 2018-19 & 2019-20. By following the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), […]
