Krishna Prasad Mikkilineni Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case also we have noticed that the assessee has given only permissive possession and not legal possession. Accordingly, following the above said decision of the coordinate bench, we hold that the transfer has not taken place during the year under consideration. Accordingly, capital gain is […]
Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, both the additions, i.e., addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act and sec.68 of the Act relate to the share premium amount, i.e., both the additions arise out of common issue only. The assessee has also filed certain additional evidences. We earlier […]
Godha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the instant case, it is not the case of the AO that the provisions of sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to the impugned transaction. In fact, it is the submission of the assessee that the possession was never given to Shri […]
Synamedia Ltd. [formerly known as ‘NDS Limited’] Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) It is the case of the Assessee that the receipts in question are pure reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Assessee for and on behalf of NDS Pay TV. It is the case of the revenue that (Para 2.1 of AO’s order) that reimbursement […]
Randox Laboratories India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The core issue arising for consideration is, whether the international transaction relating to purchase of reagents, spares, consumables from the AE is a simple trading activity, hence, can be benchmarked under RPM. Before we advert to the core issue, it is necessary to understand the activities […]
ThoughtWorks Technologies (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per clause 4 of the agreement between the assessee and the First Leasing (lessor) the asset shall remain the exclusive property of the lessor (First Leasing) at all times. It further provides that the lessee at no time during the lease period can capitalize the […]
ITAT hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2018-2019.
ITAT hold that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to a banking company i.e. the assessee herein also. Having held that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to the assessee, we are of the opinion that grounds No.19 to 22 need no adjudication at this stage.
LG Soft India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Limited v. JCIT (supra) had held education cess is an allowable expenditure as the word ‘cess’ is conspicuously absent under the provisions of section 40(a)(ii) of the I.T.Act The Hon’ble High Court also placed reliance […]
M. K. Kempasiddaiah Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Since no documentary evidence was filed, the AO treated the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was unexplained investment which the CIT(A) confirmed. It is the plea of the assessee that the assessee is a 80 years old person and his savings to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- cannot be doubted. After […]
