ITAT Chennai held that addition towards amount received as income sustained as it was specified that the amount was not given as loan or advances but was given for service towards arranging the whole deal.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as source for purchase of property duly established with necessary evidences.
ITAT Chennai held that the scope of assessment after search u/s.153A of the Income Tax Act would be limited to the incriminating material/evidence found during the course of search.
In present facts of the case, the ITAT observed that Guess work or estimation or extrapolation of income is not permissible unless there are strong evidences to suggest otherwise. The additions are to be based solely on tangible material and not on the basis of estimations or extrapolation theory
ITAT Chennai held that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act as payment made to sister concern in USA is purely reimbursement of expense and does not involve any element of income.
ITAT Chennai held that in case of banking companies were shares & securities are held as stock in trade, dividend income is considered as business income, and consequently, provisions of Sec.14A of the Act, cannot be applied.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act duly leviable as reasonable cause for accepting loans and advances in cash in contravention of provisions of Sec.269SS & 269TT not explained.
ITAT Chennai held that payment of rental or ocean freight for ships is covered by Article 8 of India-Korea DTAA. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS and therefore, disallowance invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 73 doesnot apply in view of specific exclusions of the arbitrage/jobbing transactions from the purview of speculative transaction u/s 43(5) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee failed furnish any evidences to prove that there are negotiations between assessee and AEs with regard to marketing strategy, sales targets, credit period, etc. Accordingly, TPO/AO has rightly bench marked payment of agency commission as ‘nil’.
