SKF Engineering & Lubrication India Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee during the year under consideration has made a provision for liquidated damages for an amount of Rs. 49,20,000/-. The AO during the revision proceedings has disallowed the said amount on the basis that the calculation of liquidated damages is based on percentage […]
In the present search and impugned assessment proceedings no new / hidden fact has come to light. The learned assessing officer has only changed the opinion and has now sought to tax the receipts in the year of receipt as against the year of registration. Thus, the additions in the impugned order are purely based on a change in legal opinion and not on any ‘incriminating material’.
ITAT Bangalore held that if for reasons given by CIT(A) working capital adjustment cannot be allowed to the profit margins, then the comparable uncontrolled transactions chosen for the purpose of comparison will have to be treated as not comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules. Matter remanded to re-compute the working capital adjustment.
ITAT Bangalore held that expenditure of ESOP cross-charge is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, said amount remitted by the assessee to ultimate holding company, and hence allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
In present facts of the case, the ITAT observed that proceedings under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained if the tax payer had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
Assessee, a retired bank employee earning pension, deposited Rs.15 lakhs cash in his bank account on 13.11.2016 which he explained as withdrawal on 13.10.2015 or a perceived need and kept the cash with him and the very same cash was deposited . AO rejected the explanation for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the perceived need for which cash was withdrawn holding that no prudent person would keep cash and lose interest if he deposits the money in FD. AO treated the cash deposit u/s 69A. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s 263 cannot be invoked when the order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT held that Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in case of delay in filing Form No. 67; (ii) filing of Form No. 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that rule 10B(2)(d) of the Income Tax Rules provide that the company is in the wholesale trading and retail trading have to be considered separately for the purpose of comparison.
Dr. Sankaran Sundar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The penalty imposed u/s 271D of the I.T.Act is independent of assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. Even without completion of assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, penalty u/s 271D of the I.T.Act can be imposed for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act. […]
