ITAT Bangalore held that exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act allowable based on the amount utilised towards construction of new house property where the construction is not complete.
It is settled position of law that there cannot be any estoppels against the statute. If an income, is not taxable within the four corners of law, then the same cannot be made taxable merely because the assessee has offered the same under misconception of facts and law.
ITAT Bangalore held that amount of employee’s share to ESI and PF paid after due date provide under the respective statutes is liable to be disallowed. Accordingly, matter referred back for limited purpose of verification of payment challans.
ITAT Bangalore held that interest received from amount of government grant which is remitted back to either central or state government and the benefit of the same is not received by the assessee is not to be added in the income of the assessee.
The assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of providing aviation services by operating and maintaining aircrafts at various locations and having base at Bengaluru. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny.
ITAT Bangalore directed CIT(A) to condone delay of 484 days in filing of an appeal and consider the issue on merits as it is alleged that the addition is made due to incorrect reporting by auditor.
ITAT Bangalore held that deduction towards reversal of provision for inventory written off due to obsolescence allowable since the same stands offered to tax in the year in which provision was created.
ITAT Bangalore held that payments made by [Google Ireland Limited] GIL towards Adwords program is not in the nature of royalty or FTS [Fees for Technical Service] and hence the same is not taxable in India.
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act not leviable in terms of section 273B of the Income Tax Act since claim of exemption u/s. 54 is made in an open and bonafide manner.
Sales and marketing services rendered to assessee by its US based subsidiary did not fall within the ambit of FTS as defined u/s 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of India-US DTAA as making available service did not make available knowledge, experience, skill etc.
