ITAT Delhi rules on the treatment of surrendered sales outside books, stating only profit is taxable, not the entire sales. Full judgment details.”
Kay Dee Industries Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Since it was not the first year of the payment of commission to the party and the recipient of the commission income was also not related party in terms of section 40A(2), therefore, revenue was only authorized to see whether the expenditure was laid out or by the […]
Where AO was satisfied from the valuation report of the Registered Valuer (approved by the Govt.) for the valuation of property furnished by assessee, he was not mandatory required to refer the matter for valuation of property to DVO.
No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made for non deduction of TDS on bank commission / guarantee fee as CBDT vide Circular No. 56/2012 had clarified that no TDS was required to be deducted on bank guarantee commission, etc. and the same was retrospective applicable.
Where services provided by employees of BGIL were merely in the nature of routine support services, the same could not be termed as ‘FTS’ under Article 13 of the India UK DTAA, therefore, there was no requirement for assessee to deduct taxes from such payments in India u/s 195.
Loss on sale of shares held as investment in subsidiary companies is a revenue loss as when holding company invests amounts for business of its subsidiary, it must be held for business expediency.
Foreign travelling expenditure incurred by law firm for the pleasure tour by the counsels and their family members was not in relation to any business activity of assessee-firm, therefore, the same was not allowable
Addition under section 68 on mere reason of non-production of directors in the person of shareholder companies was not justified and AO had not brought any cogent material on records in assessment order to demolish the copious evidences furnished by assessee.
The assessee has duly discharged its initial onus by submitting sufficient proof substantiating purchase and the payment is also routed through banking channel, simply because of non-existence of parties at the given address, the transaction cannot be treated as bogus and no addition can be made accordingly.
Provisions of section 269SS was not applicable to the loan transaction between husband and wife because there was no relationship of the depositor or a creditor and no interest of parties were involved.
