ITAT Chennai held that strict conditions provided in Rule 37BA should be read in the provisions of Section 199(1) to make it workable in genuine cases where department is sure no double credit is allowed or claimed.
Chennai ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeal against Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Limited. Consultant doctors’ payments subjected to Section 194J, not 192, due to lack of employer-employee relationship.
ITAT Chennai held that trade payable appearing in the books of accounts duly explained. Accordingly, addition towards the same u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified and liable to be deleted.
Delve into the intricacies of the case Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), analyzing the discrepancy between Section 68 and Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Arulmigu Aathi Karumapuram Sellandiamman Kudipaattukarakal Seva Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Chennai) Registration u/s 12AA not granted to trust existed for benefit of particular section of Hindu religion ITAT Chennai held that registration under section 12AA of the Income Tax Act is not granted to the trust which existed only for the benefit of a particular […]
ITAT Chennai held that towards professional and technical services for developing of web enabled software SIBIL for marketing related information, which in our view is payment for technical services and the same is subject to deduction of tax at source.
ITAT Chennai held that written off of irrecoverable advances given to company partakes the nature of business loss which can be allowed as deduction. Accordingly, delete additions made towards disallowance of written off of advances.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as cost of power imported is charged before computing income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act sustained as no corroborative evidence produced to prove the source for the cash deposits during demonetization period.
Penalty was levied under section 271 B of the Act on the ground that tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act was not filed by the assessee before filing of return of income and no explanation was given.
