AXA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We have considered the rival submissions. We find that despite all the details having been filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals), the CIT(Appeals) has not considered those submissions with regard to the sum disallowed by the AO, except the sum of Rs.81,52,209 which was incurred […]
Mantri Developers Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per these provisions, even if the building is not actually let out and the assessee is not occupying the same for the purpose of business, Annual Value of the building is to be estimated at the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to […]
Galax E Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The revenue is assailing the decision of Ld DRP in holding that the gain/loss arising on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange is operating income/expenses. We notice that the Ld DRP has followed the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Sap Labs […]
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance u/s 14A can exceed the amount of exempt income? In the light of the order of M/s.Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), ITAT hold that the disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act cannot exceed the exempt income.
M/s. Blue Yonder India Private Limited, (Formerly JDA Software India Private Limited) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) E-INFOCHIPS LIMITED- The Annual Report of e-Zest Solutions Limited for assessment year 2010-2011 (placed at page 527 to 534 of the paper book) clearly demonstrates that it is engaged in end to end product development, including product design and […]
Reopening of assessment under section 147 was not justified when there was no evidence to show that there was escapement of income due to failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.
It is open to the parties in Transfer Pricing cases to take a stand contrary to their TP study, if they contend that the stand taken in the TP study is contrary to facts or was erroneous. Such a claim cannot be disregarded only on the basis that it is contrary to Assessee’s own stand in the TP study.
Nike India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction for ‘Provision for sales returns’. When enquired, the assessee submitted that it creates a provision for anticipated sales returns based on a percentage of the sales made each month. It was further submitted that the provision is created […]
GSE Commerce Private Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The A.O. was of the view that the shares of the company have been over valued and accordingly asked the assessee to justify the valuation. After considering the explanations of the assessee, the A.O. took the view that the valuation report has been prepared on the basis […]
Since assessee had expended the amount well within period of 3 years from the date of sale of original asset, assessee was entitled to proportionate deduction under section 54F though the assessee had not deposited capital gains amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme within the prescribed time.
