The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dictum : vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee’s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief in granting the indulgence and to the party seeking relief.
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Banagalore) Ld. TPO thus applied the TNMM as the MAM and determined ALP which resulted in adjustment of Rs. 10,19,77,372/- to the Manufacturing Segment. The assessee filed objection before the DRP agains the proposed adjustment. However the DRP upheld the order of Ld. TPO by observing that in […]
Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) On perusal of the list of the tools treated as capital in nature and we find that the value per item in the entire list is not significant. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble SC in Sarvana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) is that […]
Google India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that assessee would be entitled to deduction of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI provided that the payments were made prior to the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It was further held by the ITAT that […]
Appeal by Anantpur Kalpana against CIT(A) order on demonetized notes. Cash deposits treated as unexplained credits. Learn about double taxation issues
Malla Foundation Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Bangalore) The CIT(E) has refused to grant approval u/s 80G of the Act primarily for the reason that the assessee has not produced the necessary proof as regards the activities of the assessee-trust and in absence of the same it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the […]
Omprakash Pandey Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee is aged about 71 years. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 15.10.2020 electronically. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed exclusion of period from 15.03.2020. If this period is excluded, the delay has to be explained only between 15.11.2019 and 14.03.2020. The […]
Joison Kundu Kulam Johny Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee submitted that his case was mishandled by one Mr. Nagesh Shastry, Income Tax Practitioner, who has been indulging in claim of fraudulent refunds by fictitious claim of deductions, which was unearthed by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that without the […]
42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) There is no dispute that the Assessee is entitled to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). On perusal of provisions of Rule 128 (8) & (9), it is clear that, one of the requirements of Rule 128 for claiming FTC is that Form 67 is to […]
ITAT held that amended provisions of section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
