Lakshminarayana Gupta Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Bangalore) The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal is with regard to the disallowance of brokerage claim amounting to Rs.2,17,000/-. It is claimed that assessee had incurred brokerage of Rs. 3,10,000 regarding sale of a property. The assessee has not produced any proof/evidences to substantiate that he had […]
Decision of jurisdictional high court with jurisdiction over AO should be followed and applied by NFAC. Relief should not be refused to taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court.
A. Manoharan Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT observe that the AO has made the addition under Section 69 of the Act of Rs.12,75,802/- for want of proper explanation of cash deposited during demonetisation period. The assessee tried to justify the same by submitted that the assessee had withdrawn cash from his Corporation Bank and Indian […]
Unexplained bank deposits cannot be considered under Section 68 and it falls under Section 69A. However, mentioning a wrong section by AO is not fatal.
ITAT Bangalore held that applicability of the proviso to 2(15) of the Act cannot be on the basis of the default of the parties in not participating in the proceedings but should be on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, matter remanded for fresh consideration.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in filing Form 10B in the relevant period was condoned as per Circular No.10 (F.No.197/55/2018) dated 22.5.2019, accordingly, deduction towards application and accumulation of funds is duly allowable.
ITAT Bangalore held that prior to amendment in section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act effective from 01.04.2020, exemption under section 54, 54B, 54D, 54EC, 54F, 54G, 54GA or 54GB can be claimed even without filing income tax return.
ITAT Bangalore held that the amount paid by Google India Private Limited (GIPL) to M/s. Google LLC (US) towards seconded employees doesn’t come under the purview of FTS (Fees for Technical Services) or FIS (Fees for Included Services) under the Income Tax Act or under DTAA.
ITAT Bangalore held that assessee being a non-resident entrusted the work to representative in India whose inaction caused delay of 36 days in filing of an appeal is reasonable cause to condone the delay.
ITAT Bangalore held that expenditure towards ESOP is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and it satisfies all the conditions referred to in section 37(1). Accordingly, expenditure towards ESOP is eligible for deduction u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act.
