The passport to derive benefit under sec. 54F(1) is investment in construction of property within the period required u/s 54(1)F or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 54F of the Act.
ALP of corporate guarantee has to be determined as it falls within scope and ambit of an international transaction after retrospective amendment to section 92B and 0.5% corporate guarantee is held to be appropriate.
Infosys Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The relevant ground with regard to the above issue are grounds 9.1 to 9.3. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nagarjuna Fertilizders and Chemicals Ltd. v. ACIT reported in (2017) 78 taxmann.com 264 had held if rate of tax applicable under DTAA is lower than […]
Sri Suhas Suresh Shet Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant is able to demonstrate that there was ‘sufficient cause’ in preferring appeal beyond the limitation period. The Courts have also held that […]
If the assessee actually received service Tax from its customers and kept it without depositing the same within due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, then only the AO has to invoke the provisions of Section 43B and bring that amount to tax.
Tokai Rika Minda India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) On the issue of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment to be restricted to AE transactions, we find that the Assessee has rightly contended that section 92 of the Act can be applied only in respect of international transactions i.e., transactions with AE. The ITAT in the […]
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) This appeal came up for hearing before this Tribunal on 8.3.2022 and it was pointed out to the ld. AR for the assessee that the appeal was not signed by the competent authority and it was signed by General Manager (CT&GST), BESCOM. It was pointed out […]
Where assessee did not offer capital gain in the year in which JDA was entered then the fact will not disentitle then to get deduction for cost of acquisition of flats obtained pursuant JDA while offering capital gain from sale of such flats in a later year.
In the present case, the main reason for treating the land as non-agricultural is that the land was converted for usage of non-agricultural purposes. However, the assessee filed revenue records wherein it is stated that the land still continued to be agricultural land wherein crops like Ragi & Paddy were cultivated by the assessee.
Kooud Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Facts- The assessee is a private limited company. AO has passed the orders u/s 200A(1) the Act levying late fee towards the delay in filing the TDS returns u/s 234(E) of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15. Conclusion- On the basis of the decision of […]
