ITAT Chennai held that the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, because, the issue of exemption u/s.11 of the Act, has been considered by the AO while completing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) u/s.263 of the Act unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai’s in Ethiraj Hotel Mart Vs DCIT held that as assessee declared excess stock as business income and provided a plausible explanation for its source, it should be taxed as ‘normal business income’ and not as ‘unexplained investment’ under section 69B.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS when all sale deeds were registered and cash payment was made at one go before the sub-registrar at the time of registration of sale deeds of plots. Hence, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
ITAT Chennai rules in favor of Sahana Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. against ITO, highlighting the importance of evidence and legal interpretation in cases of cash deposits during demonetization, underlining the principles of assessing unexplained cash credits.
ITAT Chennai rules no 263 revision for non-limited scrutiny issues. Upholds assessment order in Epimoney Pvt Ltd vs. ITO case for AY 2018-19.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act on loans and advances given to subsidiary company unjustified as investment in subsidiary is purely for commercial expediency.
Read the detailed analysis of O Clock Software Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT case by ITAT Chennai. Learn why deduction was denied for delayed PF/ESI payment under section 36(1)(va).
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of expenditure towards helper allowance claimed as deduction u/s. 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act rightly sustained as no supporting documents submitted.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening after expiry of 4 years, without establishing any failure on part of the assessee to disclose any material facts necessary for its assessment, is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
Salary received by a Non-Resident of India (NRI) in India by exercising employment in Singapore should not be taxed in India as assessee would be entitled for the benefit of Article 15 of relevant DTAA which provided that the salary would be taxable in the country wherein the employment was exercised and the same would be subject to verification by AO that this income had already been offered to tax in Singapore and assessee had paid due taxes. AO would also verify that no credit of Taxes paid in India had been taken by assessee in Singapore.
