ITAT Chennai

Brand usage – not an international transaction

Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Whether the usage of foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) brand name on the cars manufactured and sold by the tax payer amounted to rendering of brand promotion service, and whether it constituted an international transaction under section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act)....

Read More

Bogus Capital Gain: Cross examination Opportunity should be allowed

Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)

Conclusion: Claim of assessee for long term capital gains arising on transfer of shares u/s.10(38) was real or sham, required a revisit by AO by considering all the evidences produced by assessee and also, AO should allow the opportunity of cross-examination  to check the nature of transaction....

Read More

Bogus capital gains: LTCG on sale of shares via recognised stock exchange

Rajesh Singhvi and Sons (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)

Rajesh Singhvi and Sons (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Claim of the assessee for exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act, on alleged long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of M/s.Cresanda Commercial Solutions Ltd and M/s. Surabhi Chem & Investment Ltd were disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer considering these to be penny stock co...

Read More

Presumptive income cannot be estimated U/s. 44AD for partners remuneration

Mr. A. Anandkumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)

Partners’ remuneration from firm should  not be subject to the application of presumptive interest rate under section 44AD as the same could not be construed as gross receipts or turnover of a business independently carried on by a partner. ...

Read More

No penalty u/s 271D for advance received from promoters in cash through Current A/cs

M/s. Space N Place Promoters P. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Chennai)

 Penalty u/s 271D could not be imposed on assessee for advances against sale of flats and cash receipts received from the promoters through their respective current accounts as nothing had been brought on record by Revenue to show that the receipts were superfluous in nature and not for the business of assessee....

Read More

Commission of overseas agents for marketing, procurement of orders not liable to TDS u/s 195

M/s. Evolv Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)

Payment of commission to overseas agents for marketing, procurement of orders and systematic market research was not liable to TDS as the same was not liable to tax in India as per Section 9(1)(vii)....

Read More

Execution of power of attorney not amounts to transfer of property

Shri S.S. Manthirikumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)

Mere execution of power of attorney could not be considered to be transfer of property. For transfer of property, assessee had to enter into an agreement for sale either by himself or through power of attorney agent and also hand over the physical possession of the property as contemplated under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act....

Read More

Taxability of rent when leasing is main object of assessee

Ambattur Infra Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Main object of the assessee firm, as laid down in the partnership deed, includes leasing of industrial park hence the income of the assessee both from leasing the space as well as providing maintenance services had to be considered only under the head income from business....

Read More

ITAT confirms addition for Bogus LTCG

Ms Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)

Assessee come out with the plea that they were not provided with opportunity of cross-examining the witness, the investigation report was not furnished and proper opportunity was not provided of being heard. However we find that all these arguments raised by the assessee before us was never alleged before the AO when the matter was before...

Read More

Licence fee paid for using MS Office software cannot be treated as Capital expenditure-

M/s. ILink Multitech Solutions Pvt. Vs DCIT (ITAT Cheenai)

By purchasing licence to use MS Office software assessee received enduring benefit in the course of earning of profit, however, it did not become owner of the software, therefore, licence fee could not be treated as capital expenditure....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,092)
Company Law (4,577)
Custom Duty (7,251)
DGFT (3,898)
Excise Duty (4,187)
Fema / RBI (3,658)
Finance (3,862)
Income Tax (29,489)
SEBI (3,093)
Service Tax (3,442)