ITAT Delhi held that scope and ambit of section 44BB of the Income tax Act is wide enough to include receipts of assessee from Cairn India and ONGC in connection with activity of prospecting for, or extraction, or production of mineral oils.
No TDS deduction at source on Salary is contemplated under Section 192 in cases where a payment towards salary has accrued but is not made.
Without pointing out specific defects in documents furnished, disallowance on ad-hoc basis for failure to furnish all documentary evidence is unacceptable
ITAT held that once additions been made under Black Money Act the same addition cannot be made under Income Tax Act on the same set of facts
Umano Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed before him. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to the order sheet entry (page 10-11 of Paper Book) made by the Ld. AO to emphasis that the adequate opportunity to present […]
ITAT held that the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS by the assessee u/s 201(1A) r.w.s. 206C(7) of the Act cannot be held as penal in nature and, thus, incurred out of commercial expediency and, therefore, is allowable u/s 37 of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that as per amendment to section 153C of the Income Tax Act the six assessment years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made will come into the purview of block assessment years.
ITAT held that interest paid on late payment of TDS is compensatory in nature and is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.
ITAT held that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
Jurisdiction of ITAT Bench which can decide appeal is to be determined by location of Assessing Officer. Since, location of AO in instant proceeding is at Mumbai, the appeals, should have been filed before Mumbai Benches and not in Delhi Benches.
