ITAT Chennai’s ruling in Smt. Nagappan Suganthi Vs ACIT. Non-consideration of evidence on deduction claim u/s 54B and capital gains exemption on sale of agricultural land. Matter remanded to AO.
In a crucial ruling, ITAT Chennai allows Section 54F deduction for a new residential property purchase, clarifying tax implications. Learn more in this detailed analysis.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
Explore the case of Daechang Seat Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT at ITAT Chennai, involving a ‘conflict of interest’ issue. Learn about legal principles, professional conduct, and how it impacts income-tax proceedings
Learn why ITAT Chennai deleted the penalty in the case of S. A. Poultry Farms vs. ITO for failure to upload the income tax return electronically. Detailed analysis provided.
Explore case of V.R. Usha Vs ITO, where Section 54F exemption was denied despite partial property ownership, and how it sets a precedent for similar cases.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act being issued mechanically by AO without going through the original assessment records and without verification of documents on records is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Chennai held that once the nature and source of credit found in the books of accounts is linked to business, then any income generated out of such business activity is assessable under the head income from business and profession alone, but not under the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that the corporate guarantee to Associated Enterprise (AE) is an international transaction and it has to be assessed at 0.5% of the corporate commission. Hence, directed AO to restrict the disallowance at 0.5% of the guarantee value.
ITAT Chennai held that the services rendered by non-resident agent for completion of export commitment would not fall under the definition for fee for technical services. Hence, disallowance alleging non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
