CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal un-admitted, for the reason that assessee has filed appeal manually instead of electronically filing is mandatory under the rules. When these facts were confronted to Id. senior Department Representative, she could not controvert the above stated facts. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.
ACIT Vs Dong Woo Surface Tech India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chennai) Facts- The parent company M/s. Dongwoo HST Co. Ltd renders supervisory services to the assessee by dispatching expatriates to India for carrying out work for which the assessee company has agreed to pay supervisory and managerial fees vide agreement dated 25.12.2007. The scope of […]
International Bakery Products Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Prior period item whether expenses or income is an item of expense deductible or item of income, always comes below the line in the profit & loss account. That means, for all practical purposes, the net profit as per books of account for the relevant period is […]
For the condonation of the delay, the assessee has to show that there must be a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In this case, the assessee himself decided as per his affidavit not to go to his house knowingly that there must be an assessment order. No one is prevented the assessee to go to his house therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause to condone delay. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Jayaseelan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Shri Jayaseelan (the Appellant) has filed the current appeal being aggrieved against the order dated March 5, 2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT(A)) for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the claim of the Appellant claiming benefit under section 54 of the Income Tax Act,1961 […]
In so far as the certificate issued by the Tehsildar is concerned which is at page No.1A of the paper book, it does not show that from the Chidambaram how it comes to 8.5 K.M and apart from that in our view the Tehsildar is not a competent person to decide the distance.
Sak Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) We find that the assessee has purchased 1,25,000/- equity shares of ING Vysya Bank during the month of January and February, 2009 and subsequently during the month of September, 2009 all the shares are sold. The assessee also shows the above transaction in its books of accounts […]
Increase in brand value due to use of foreign AEs brand name in Taxpayer’s products cannot be considered as provision of services, as per international transaction definition u/s 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Disallowances u/s.14A could not exceed amount of exempt income, therefore, AO was directed to restrict disallowances u/s.14A to the extent of exempt income earned for the impugned assessment year.
Additions made by AO was not only on the basis of sworn statement but also on the basis other evidences collected during the course of search including discrepancies in books of accounts regarding accounting of bogus purchases therefore, there was no merit in arguments of assessee that AO had made additions towards alleged purchases only on the basis of statement recorded from those parties without further evidences.
