ITAT hold that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to a banking company i.e. the assessee herein also. Having held that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to the assessee, we are of the opinion that grounds No.19 to 22 need no adjudication at this stage.
LG Soft India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Limited v. JCIT (supra) had held education cess is an allowable expenditure as the word ‘cess’ is conspicuously absent under the provisions of section 40(a)(ii) of the I.T.Act The Hon’ble High Court also placed reliance […]
M. K. Kempasiddaiah Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Since no documentary evidence was filed, the AO treated the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was unexplained investment which the CIT(A) confirmed. It is the plea of the assessee that the assessee is a 80 years old person and his savings to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- cannot be doubted. After […]
SLV Housing Development Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The tax authorities have pointed out time gap in getting a tax audit report from a new CA. However, it is a known fact that it might have taken some time to severe relationship with the earlier CA. However, the fact remains that the tax audit report […]
Randox Laboratories India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The facts on record reveal that the Transfer Pricing Officer under a misconception that the assessee has undertaken manufacturing activity has rejected RPM. Learned DRP has also not examined the facts in proper perspective. Rather, learned DRP has recorded an erroneous finding by stating that in […]
District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bengalore) Conclusion: Reassessment beyond four years was not valid in the absence of failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Held: Assessee claimed deduction of Rs.3,50,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(viia). However, assessee debited only Rs.3,00,00,000/- to the profit and loss […]
Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Ld.CIT(A) held that the advertisement expenses paid to Facebook and other entities constitutes use of industrial, commercial or scientific equipment under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act whether active or passive and hence ‘Royalty’ under the Act. As regards taxability as ‘“Fees for technical services’, it was […]
Eskay Heat Transfers Private Limited Vs ADIT (ITAT Bangalore) Till Assessment Year (AY) 2020-2021 Assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payments were made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act as Amendment by Finance Act, […]
Stirred Creative Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We find no merit in the argument of the ld.DR since the explanation as provided in Finance Act, 2021 prescribes that the amendment in both sec.36(va) as well as 43B by inserting corresponding explanation that although impugned PF comes in the form of provision and the […]
The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment to the provisions to section 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, has to be construed as retrospective and applicable for the period prior to 01.04.2021 also.
