Stirred Creative Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We find no merit in the argument of the ld.DR since the explanation as provided in Finance Act, 2021 prescribes that the amendment in both sec.36(va) as well as 43B by inserting corresponding explanation that although impugned PF comes in the form of provision and the […]
The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment to the provisions to section 43B and 36(1)(va) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, has to be construed as retrospective and applicable for the period prior to 01.04.2021 also.
Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee grievance is bundled approach for benchmarking should be accepted. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the TPO has accepted the bundled approach of aggregation of payment of fees for administrative support services in the preceding years (i.e. from the incorporation year […]
The TPO and DRP erred in treating CCDs as ECBs and benchmarked the interest rate against LIBOR rate. The CCDs is a hybrid instrument and cannot be per se treated as ECB / loan.
Skava Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT/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 […]
Green Orchard Farm Houses Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Ld.AR has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an omission on part of the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(2) cannot be […]
Explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless the legislature specifically says so. In the decisions referred to by us in the earlier paragraph of this order on identical issue the tribunal has taken a view that the aforesaid amendment is applicable only prospectively i.e., from 1.4.2021.
In our view, the loss on account of forfeiture of advance paid to Mr. Rakesh Rastogi is incidental to the business of the assessee and is allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) or under section 28 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi (supra).
(i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) Filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
Madhu Solanki Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, First of all, the outstanding balances related to the purchases made during the year under consideration and not brought forward balances. The AO did not get reply from both the trade creditors and hence he proceeded to assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases […]
