Assessee in respect of premium paid to insurance company could not be brought to tax subject to the fact that assessee should not avail deduction u/s 80C of Act in respect of premium paid towards that insurance policy.
Asha Devi Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, limited scrutiny was to be done for verification of cash deposits and the source of cash deposits from the safe custody account is not examined by the AO by calling for relevant details from the assessee. The AO ought to have examined the same to […]
Think and Learn Private Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: An assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer, deciding on an issue pending before the AAR, in contravention of the mandate laid down in Section 245R(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not make the entire assessment order void. Held: PCIT, under section 263 […]
Held that the training fee paid by the assessee to a professional trainer doesn’t amount to Fees for Technical Services and hence TDS u/s 195 not deductible
Held that show cause notice to initiate proceedings u/s. 201(1) is issued on 20.11.2012 which is beyond four years with respect to assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Accordingly, interest levied u/s 201(1A) unsustainable.
Reasonable quantum of cash available out of past savings should be considered as being available to assessee to explain source of cash deposited in bank
Bappanalli Brothers Vs ACIT (ITAT Banglore) CIT(A) concluded that the payments were not made directly to the cultivator and therefore the Assessee has not proved existence of circumstances set out in Rule 6DD(e) of the rules. ITAT held that The reasons given by the CIT(A) for treating the payment in question not to the Agriculturists […]
In the instant case, admittedly, it is loan creditors and not a trading liability. So, the assessee has not obtained allowance or deduction in computing the profits and gains of business or profession in respect of assessment of any year.
Held that foreign travel directly relating to securing the capital investment in the assessee’s business is capital in nature. Accordingly, such expenditure is not allowable expenditure u/s 30 to 38 as expenditure is not laid down wholly and exclusively for day to day operation of the assessee’s business.
Held that late fee u/s 234E for delayed filing of return of TDS not leviable while processing a return of TDS for the assessment years prior to 1.6.2015.
