ITAT held that provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of are applicable only in cases where purchased share become property in the hands of buyer company and, if shares are of any other company.
ITAT Delhi held that as common area maintenance charges are not forming part of the actual rent paid to the owner by the assessee, TDS on the same is deductible under section 194C @2% and not under section 194.
ITAT Delhi held that the scholarship to a student who was neither an employee nor associated with the company for any commercial or business purpose doesn’t satisfy the provisions of section 36 and section 37 and hence not allowable as deduction.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act leviable on account of repayment of loan in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 vis-à-vis failure of assessee to prove that such payment is covered by exceptional circumstances covered under section 269T.
ITAT Delhi held that transactions relating to currency swap contracts cannot be considered to be in the nature of speculative transaction covered u/s. 43(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
ITAT reversed the demand under Section 200A attributable to merely wrong mention of TAN in the TDS deposit challan
Where delay in filing TDS statements occurred as employees of assessee-bank were not well acquainted with procedure of e-filing of TDS return and also the bank in near past switched over itself from old system to CBS system and the employees were getting acquainted with the new banking software; it constituted a reasonable explanation under section 273B and hence, penalty levied under section 272A(2)(k) was liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order passed in the name of non-existent entity is equivalent to passing an order in the name of dead person, hence, is invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of difference between the share valued by the company and value determined as per IT Rules sustained as the assessee failed to discharge his onus of proof.
ITAT Delhi held that adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction is unjustified.
