In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that the appellant failed to produce proof in support of dispatch of Form 15H to the CIT, this by itself does not entail any addition. It was only technical breach of law and the act provides for separate penal provisions for such default.
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad vs. DCIT held that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to non-rural/urban advances.
In this case AO made certain addition being disagreed from the submissions of the assessee. Being aggrieved from the assessment order assessee filed appeal before CIT (A). After considering submissions of the assessee and noticing that the provisions of Section 14A has to be invoked
In the case of Smt. Uppala Rajani Vs. DCIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT have held that the amount advanced for business transaction between parties regarding supply of material and labour, are not such to fall within the definition of ‘deemed dividend’ under S.2(22)(e).
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of M/s. OSI Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that it may be a fact that software development services is a very wide term and takes within its ambit, whole software development services.
The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture of pre-engineered building system products. During relevant year, assessee entered into international transactions with its AE situated in Kuwait.
In the present case there were the three issues which were decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal where it was held that whenever the transactions have been made through proper banking channel, then invocation of section 68 will not be valid.
The object and activities of the assessee were entrusted to it by RBI as a part of its supervisory role over the bank in India. Revenue doubted that assessee is engaged in commercial activities and hence proviso of section 2 (15) was applicable to the case of assessee and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11.
Whether expenditure paid in cash, which is not disallowed u/s 37 (1), can be disallowed under section 40A(3). Whether provision of section 54F are applicable where nature of property turned into commercial purpose.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had received a loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs in cash on 10.05.2009 thereby violating the provisions of section 269S of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271D of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2013 which was duly served on the assessee.
