ITAT Chennai

Exemption U/s. 54F cannot be denied merely because capital asset was purchased in individual name of coparcener of HUF

Shri Puranchand & Family (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)

Shri K. Balasubramanian, the learned representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee HUF, sold 122.840 carat of diamonds on 2-1-2012 for a total consideration of Rs. 57,12,060. The long-term capital gain computed at Rs. 42,65,619. According to the learned representative, there was no dispute about sale of diamonds and the comp...

Read More

TDS deductible on Audit Fees provision credited to Auditors Account

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)

On perusal of section 194J of the Act, we find that tax is deductible at source either at the time of credit of expenditure to the account of the payee or at the time of payment whichever is earlier. In the instant case, the assessee had made provision for audit fees to the account of the payee which fact has been mentioned by the ld CITA...

Read More

Interest U/s. 234A cannot be levied on Assessment considering return filed U/s. 139(1)

G. Narasiman Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai)

G. Narasiman Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) Belated return filed under section 139(4) could not be revised under section 139(5). Therefore, revised return filed by assessee was invalid and to frame assessment by considering such return as return filed under section 139(1) was in conflict with charging interest under section 234A for delay in fili...

Read More

MS Office software License Purchase Expense is Revenue Expense

M/s ILink Multi tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

It is not in dispute that the assessee purchased MS Office software and used the same in its business. By purchasing MS Office software, the assessee has not become owner of the software. The ownership of MS Office software remained with Microsoft company. ...

Read More

Section 80-IB(10): Open terrace area excluded by Local Authority from working of built-up area cannot be included by revenue

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Acestar Properties Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chennai)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai, on Wednesday, brought in further clarity to one of its previous orders regarding the inclusiveness of private open terrace in build-up area of a flat, for the purpose of deductions as per Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. ...

Read More

TDS U/s. 194J not applicable on Roaming Charges

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. (ITAT Chennai)

Tribunal found that roaming charges cannot be considered as fee for technical services, therefore, the provisions of Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not applicable. ...

Read More

Confirmation letter by creditor establishes only identity & not creditworthiness & genuineness

A. Godwin Maria Visuvasam Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai)

A. Godwin Maria Visuvasam Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) Merely furnishing of confirmation letter by a creditor, as it again well settled, does not would at best only establish identity of the creditors. There was nothing on record establishing creditworthiness of the creditors and/or genuineness of impugned loans and advances in the instant case...

Read More

Two different floors of one house property cannot be treated as two different residential houses

ITO Vs. Nathamuni Krishnaswamy Balaji (ITAT Chennai)

Where assessee purchased Ground Floor of the house property and had also purchased first floor of the said house property and deduction for both the ground floor and the first floor under section 54F by treating both the floors as one single residential unit thus he was entitled to became two different floors of one house property could n...

Read More

No Taxability under Income Tax Provisions if no tax under respective DTAA

DCIT Vs. Ford India Limited (ITAT Chennai)

Recently, in DCIT vs. Ford India Limited & vice-versa[I.T.A. Nos. 673 and 840 /Chny/2015 and I.T.A. Nos. 748 and 749 /Chny/2015, A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, decided on 31.01.2017], one of the question raised before ITAT, Chennai was whether CIT(A) erred in deleting the tax...

Read More

Power to rectify a mistake U/s. 254(2) cannot be used to recall entire order

Technip India Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (ITAT Chennai)

Section 254 does not indicate that Tribunal can recall entire order and pass a fresh decision and power to rectify a mistake under section 254(2) could not be used for recalling entire order....

Read More
Page 1 of 2312345...1020...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,724)
Company Law (3,807)
Custom Duty (6,921)
DGFT (3,658)
Excise Duty (4,127)
Fema / RBI (3,449)
Finance (3,658)
Income Tax (27,221)
SEBI (2,882)
Service Tax (3,352)