Explore the case of Shri T. Sriranga (HUF) vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore), where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the issue of cash deposit disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for verification in accordance with CBDT circulars.
Sri. Sandeep Patwari Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Violation of procedural norm does not extinguish substantive right of claiming Foreign Tax credit (FTC) Assessee received 143(1) intimation wherein the foreign tax credit (FTC) of Rs.14,02,442 was not granted. Rectification application filed u/s 154 too did not allow the claim of the assessee. CIT(A) confirmed the 154 […]
ITAT Bangalore held that claim of deduction of cost of building is not allowable as there was no mentioning of any value of the building in the schedule of the fixed assets.
ITAT Bangalore held that reopening beyond the period of 4 years of completion of assessment u/s 143(3) without allegation regarding non-disclosure of full and true material facts is bad-in-law.
Ravindra Dayanand Sankeshwar Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee, an individual/ proprietor claimed expenses towards interest on unsecured loans. 30% disallowance of interest expenditure for non-deduction of TDS was upheld by CIT(A) holding that Act requires the forms to be submitted before the competent authority during the year under consideration and not at the time scrutiny […]
ITAT Bangalore held that distribution fees paid by Google India Private Ltd. (Google India) cannot be treated as DAPE (Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment) of Google Ireland Ltd (Google Ireland). Accordingly, distribution fees paid by Google India to Google Ireland doesn’t attract TDS u/s. 195.
ITAT Bangalore held that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) is the most appropriate method for determining the Arm’s Length Price of the assessee for the importing of goods for manufacturing segment.
As the turnover of the assessee was less than the prescribed limit fixed for tax audit, provisions of Section 44AB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. When the provisions of Section 44 AB of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case, levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Act does not arise.
Vineet Sethi Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has been terminated vide letter issued by TBM Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.2.2016 due to misconduct of the assessee, wherein it was alleged that assessee has been indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the interest of the employer company and assessee was promoting and carrying […]
Shanthi R. Pai Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) AO made addition of Rs.26,79,000/- on account of cash deposits. Assesee stated that she is a home maker & her husband was employed overseas as Chartered Accountant serving overseas from 1975 to 2008. He used to send money from abroad and also invested in Term Deposits in India […]
