Plivo Communications Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of M.M.Aqua Technologies Limited v. CIT reported in (2021) 436 ITR 582 (SC) had held that retrospective provision in a taxing Act which is ‘for the removal of doubts’ cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it […]
Avijit Dewanjee Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT held that as the assessee has not ascertained the loss on account of embezzlement of cash in the books of account and it is shown as sundry debtors suspense account without charging it to the P&L account. At this stage, it is not possible to hold that it […]
Amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 to section 36(1)(via) and 43B is only prospective in nature and not retrospective and the same to be effective from 1-4-2021 and will apply for and from the assessment year 2021-22 onwards.
Prism Networks Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DRP has not considered the plea of assessee in proper perspective. The fact that the TPO rejected the TP Study of the Assessee cannot be the basis not to consider the claim of the Assessee for inclusion of comparable companies. The […]
Methods (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case there is no dispute that the assessee made payment of the Employees share of PF/ESI on or before the due date for filing return of income for AY 2017-18 u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The next aspect to be considered is whether the amendment […]
Income from contract farming done by assessee cannot be treated as agricultural income and that the assessee is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(1) in respect of such income.
Sri. Yeruva Prasad Vs ACIT/DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The amended provisions of section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act are not applicable for the assessment years under consideration i.e. 2018-19 & 2019-20. By following the binding decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra), […]
Acceptance and repayment of cash for personal purpose between near relatives did not not attract sections 269SS and 269T and, therefore, no penalty could be levied under section 271D/271E.
Income Tax dispute: Anugraha Shelters challenges capital gain assessment. Joint Development Agreement not treated as possession under sec.53A of Transfer of Property Act.
Interest earned from investments made with Co-operative Bank, not being Co-operative Bank was not deductible either under section 80P(2)(d) or under section 80P(2)(a)(i). Such interest income was to be assessed as income from other sources, however, deduction under section 57 was to be given in respect of expenditure for earning interest income.
