The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in stating that TDS u/s 195 applicable on software expenses without appreciating the fact that appellant was merely acting as a distributor and not having right to have a copy of the software?
Rashmi Mahendra Dhanani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) There are 128 flats in Eternia Co-operative Hosing Society Ltd. No compliance has been received from the society even after repeated reminders. On perusal of the submission received from the builder, Hiranandani Lake Gardens and the group concern M/s. Lake View Developer, AO observed that out of 128 […]
Balaji Prasanna Travels Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) It is observed that as agreed by and between the assessee and the cab owners, a vehicle was to be provided by the assessee to the parties and thus, the assessee was to bear the vehicle expenses actually incurred by the said cab owners and which will be […]
SAP India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We find that apart from writing off of bad debts in the books of accounts, the assessee has to fulfill this requirement of section 36(2) of the IT Act also that the amount in question has been considered as income in the relevant year or in an […]
The issue under consideration is whether denial of claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act on transfer pricing adjustment made by the assessee voluntarily is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether TPO is correct in making an upward adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant’s international transactions on account of imputation of notional interest on outstanding receivables?
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in denying the benefit of deduction to assessee u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Ryatara Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee did not file an appeal before the first appellate authority within the time limit prescribed, on the bonafide belief that the demand that has arisen on account of disallowance of claim u/s 80P of the I.T.Act would not be enforced and shall be kept […]
For computing indexed cost of the asset, the date is to be reckoned from the date of allotment of the property to the assessee, and not from the date on which possession certificate was issued to the assessee.
As per the proviso to section 43B, the amount paid before the due date for filing return of income out of the provision created is allowable as deduction. Admittedly, assessee had paid a sum out of the provision so created, before the due date for filing return of income.
