ITAT Delhi held that assessee duly deducted TDS @2% u/s 194C Income Tax Act on payment of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Charges as provisions of section 194I of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to this payment.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated concludes that the notice is issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind and accordingly imposition of penalty is bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act can be allowed only if the employees’ share in the provident fund and ESI fund is deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated in respective Acts.
alleged default towards non deduction of TDS from payments made to Guest faculties with reference to Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITAT Delhi held that royalty payment and R&D cess on royalty is interlinked. As royalty payment is allowed as revenue expenditure, R&D cess is also allowable as revenue expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held that addition is made on the basis of documents found from the separate search at another person. Accordingly, assessment should have been done under section 153C of the Income Tax Act and not under section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable in case of inadequate inquiry, in fact, revisional power is invocable only in case of lack of inquiry.
ITAT Delhi held that lower of unabsorbed depreciation and business loss deserved to be set off against the current year books profit in terms of provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 115JB (2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that payment of IUC Charges is not Fee for Technical Services or Royalty within the meaning of its definition as per section 9(l)(vi) and 9(l)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that unless there was specific material collected to rebut the submissions of assessee then merely on basis of inference from the circumstances, the purchase could not have been held to be bogus.
