ITAT Bangalore held that AO allowed the claim of assessee after due application of mind and on proper consideration of the material available on record. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) unsustainable as assessee is not liable to deduct TDS for reason that consideration received couldnt have been regarded as income deemed to accrue or arise in India.
ITAT Bangalore held that any ambiguity in a taxing statute should ensure the benefit of the subject/ assessee. Accordingly, the taxing provision of late fee in respect of late filing of TDS return came into force from 01.06.2015. Hence, late fees u/s 234E cannot be levied before 01.06.2015.
Nandini V. Kalgutkar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) On perusal of section 41 of the IT Act, it is evident that it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in any assessment in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee. Then, subsequently, […]
ITAT Bangalore held that Share Application Money should not be included in the value of investments. Accordingly, for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the Share Application Money should be excluded.
ITO Vs Shri Ramesh Kumar (HUF) (ITAT Bangalore) It should be kept in mind that the Hindu Law does not recognize a joint Hindu family or coparcenery as a juristic personality capable of holding property and as an entity separate from the members of the family. The true position in law is that all the […]
Reassessment was bad in law beyond four years when the tax payer had disclosed the facts at the time of original assessment proceedings and the AO did not draw any adverse inference regarding the same.
ITAT Bangalore held that before setting aside the matter the PCIT must have some material which would enable to form prima facie opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act not possible on guess work.
ITAT Bangalore held that excess premium paid by the assessee on redemption of preference shares cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(d) or section 2(22)(e) and hence deleted the addition.
While holding that the premium on redemption of preference shares was exigible to tax under the head Income from Capital Gains, the ITAT held that the revenue authorities were not justified in making the additions to the assessees income on the ground of notional premium receivable on preference shares.
