Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Bangalore

Staff shortage due to merger is sufficient cause for Delay in Filing Appeal

March 22, 2021 798 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee herein is one of the branches of M/ State Bank of Travancore, which has since been merged with M/s State Bank of India. It is stated that there was shortage of staff and domain expertise in taxation. On examination of reasons furnished by the assessee in a liberal manner, in our view, the reasons given by assessee for delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) shall constitute sufficient cause

Section 54 – Date of Possession Vs. Date of Sale Deed

March 19, 2021 31725 Views 0 comment Print

K.S. Hanumantha Rao Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) According to the CIT, the assessee was not entitled to claim for deduction u/s 54 of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.48,81,963 for the investment made in new asset, since the investment in the new asset was made one year prior to the date of sale of the original […]

AO must pass separate orders to give effect to Tribunal orders

March 18, 2021 2871 Views 0 comment Print

NXP India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case AO passed a combined order giving effect to earlier orders of Tribunal with regard to original assessment and also reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act which is incorrect. The AO must have passed distinct and separate orders giving effect to the […]

TDS not deductible on Amounts paid to non-resident manufacturers for resale/use of computer software

March 17, 2021 2421 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Bangalore rules non-resident software payment not royalty. Section 195 not applicable. Full text and analysis of Altisource vs. ACIT case.

Date of allotment relevant for determining STCG/LTCG & Section 54/54F exemption

March 16, 2021 5211 Views 0 comment Print

Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Jadav Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee gets a right to the impugned property on the date of allotment letter, i.e., on 22.02.2006 and payment of instalment as per the terms is only a follow up action and taking delivery of possession is only a formality. Therefore, reckoning the period from 22.02.2006, i.e. the […]

No Section 234E interest on TDS returns filed prior to 1.6.2015

March 11, 2021 1668 Views 0 comment Print

Ram Niwas Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) is applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior […]

Addition for Non-Bonafide change in revenue recognition method justified

March 11, 2021 612 Views 0 comment Print

UL India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The next issue relates to the addition made rejecting the claim of change in method of revenue recognition. The Ld A.R fairly admitted that this issue has been decided against the assessee by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2009-10 (referred supra). We notice that this issue has […]

15% contribution to SPV account in respect of category B mines eligible for deduction

March 9, 2021 1152 Views 0 comment Print

Muneer Enterprises Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of extraction, processing and manufacturing of iron ore for sale. The assessee owns mining lease No. 2339/2151 measuring 36.42 ha classified under category B. It has been stated that the only issue that arises out of the impugned order […]

Section 35(2AB) not provides for cut off date for eligibility

March 9, 2021 2190 Views 0 comment Print

Shilpa Medicare Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Provisions of Sec. 35(2AB) of Income Tax Act, nowhere suggest simply that R& D facility is approved from particular date and in other words, it is no where suggested that date of approval only will be cut off date for eligibility. The court further held that once facility […]

Disallowance of interest expenses justified for Borrowed money invested in equity without any commercial expediency

March 8, 2021 1077 Views 0 comment Print

 Where the assessee diverted borrowed funds towards investment in a company but did not collect any interest on money so invested then the AO was justified in making the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital particularly in view of the fact that the assessee failed to prove that there was any commercial expediency in making the investment that company.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031