Outsource Partners International (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) It was not a case where no exempted income is earned and AO applied rule 8D for as rule 8D of Income Tax Rules takes care of all aspects of interest bearing funds and interest free funds and expenditure incurred in management of portfolios, etc., once […]
In the case of more than one properties are purchased by the assessee, the option is available with the assessee to claim benefit under Section 54 in respect of the residential house purchased for the assessee’s own residence.
ACIT Vs. M/s. Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)- ITAT Slams CIT(A) for violation of Judicial Discipline by taking contradictory view on issue already confirmed on merit by it and CIT (Appeals) have no jurisdiction to take any decision on issue which is already been decided by CIT under Section 263.
A division bench of the Bengaluru ITAT, on Tuesday held that the distribution fee paid by Google India to Google Ireland for use of its Ad words programme is taxable in India as royalty under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bengaluru ITAT, on Wednesday, confirmed the dis allowance of interest expenses claimed on advances received under sub-Lease agreement since there was a defect in the title of the assessee on the subject property.
EADS India (P) Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore) In case of amalgamation, assessee was required to file the revised Form No. 36 in accordance with rules, to continue its appeal in the name of new entity. In the absence of any amended Form 36/memo of parties, the present appeals were not maintainable. It is […]
In a significant ruling delivered on Friday, a division bench of the ITAT Bengaluru held that the benefit of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be extended to the cost incurred by the assessee on alteration / renovation on the purchased unit.
Where assessee did not explain satisfactorily about excess gold found from his employee’s possession, addition made under section 69 was as such, rightly made.
In this case AO has made addition merely on the basis of ledger extract filed by the assessee on the assumption that the said payments are interest payments which attracts TDS under the provisions of section 194A of the Act, without conducting further inquiries in the background of the assessee’s claim that the said payments […]
In the instant case, the deductee has filed the return of income on 14.12.2012 and the long term capital gains resulted into capital loss which resulted into nil demand. According to the assessee, there was no tax payable by the deductee on the transaction of sale of immovable property. When there is no tax payable by the deductee on sale of land, there is no question of charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, as per instruction No.2 of 2014 dated 26.2.2014 and the circulars are binding on the Departmental officers. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act as per instruction No.2 of 2014 and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
