Assessee was neither entitled to deduction under section 80P(2Xd) nor under section 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest income earned from investments with Cooperative Banks such interest income was to be assessed as income from other sources.
Netra Software Technologies P Ltd. Vs ACIT (CPC) (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the assessee has not enclosed any evidence along with the return suggesting completion of construction of commercial building and its readiness to let out, as such the ACIT(CPC) denied the interest claimed by the assessee by way of intimation sent to the […]
The CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payments towards electricity, water supply, security, lift maintenance etc., falling within the meaning of section 194C whereby these charges are paid for carrying out the work for maintenance of the common area that are available along with the lease premises.
TPO /DRP in their order has expressed an inability to compute the ALP using CUP due to a lack of information in the public domain. Given the difficulty / impossibility in computing ALP using CUP and considering the close nexus between the manufacturing activity and payment of management / license fees, the method to be adopted for benchmarking the above international transactions by the assessee ought to be TNMM.
Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India Branch Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act on 23.03.2016 which is accompanied with demand notice issued u/s. 156 of the Act dated 23.03.2016. It is also noticed that in the draft assessment […]
The tax Auditor has also certified the deduction claimed as per Sl.No.33 of the Form No.3CD therefore, only for want of not filing Form NO.10CCB within the due date the claim of deduction should not be disallowed
ITAT Bangalore ruling on demonetization cash dispute. Assessing double taxation on demonetized notes as sales proceeds. Learn more about the case.
AO did not make any addition with regard to URD purchases, which were considered to be bogus or inflation of expenses, in the respective years. Without making addition of alleged bogus/inflated expenses, the A.O. could not disallow depreciation
Education cess is an additional surcharge levied on income tax and hence it partakes the character of income tax and is not allowable as deduction.
It is well settled proposition of law that the apprehension, howsoever strong, cannot substitute material evidences. A.O. was not justified in treating part of liabilities as unproved on presumptions, surmises and conjectures
