Held that the land earmarked for public utility purpose in terms of municipal regulations while forming residential lay out, cannot be brought to tax either u/s.47(iii) of the Income Tax Act or u/s.45(2) of the Income Tax Act
Exemption under section 11 was allowable and there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) in case the civil contract awarded to a firm in which managing trustee of the trust was the proprietor as the civil contract had been included in the definition of services as per GST laws and also as per Erstwhile Service Tax laws and payment made in under services rendered by the interested persons was not more than the consideration paid for relevant work.
ITAT Chennai held that factoring charges could not be termed as Interest under section 2(28A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, disallowance of the same u/s 40(a)(ia) unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that the expenditure incurred towards the purchase of the off-the-shelf software products is not in the nature of Royalty for use of copyright in the software and thus not liable for withholding of tax u/s.195 of the Act.
Bhairabnala Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) As far as section 80P(4) of the Act, it only provides that provisions of section 80P shall not be applied in relation to any cooperative bank other than agricultural credit society or any agricultural rural bank. In simple words such cooperative Bank cannot claim deduction […]
DCIT Vs Allsec Technologies Ltd (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that the assessee cannot be expected to deduct TDS on payment made to non-residents on the basis of subsequent amendment to the law with retrospective effect from earlier date, because the assessee cannot foresee the amendment and deduct TDS and hence, we are of the considered […]
Miracle Cars India Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The undisputed facts are that the agreement between the assessee and M/s. DRS Industries Ltd., dated 30.06.2010 did not materialize and consequently, the dealership of Skoda cars sales & services has not been transferred to the assessee. Further, the rent agreement in respect of premises where […]
ITAT held that payment made to non-resident without deducting the tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act does not arise.
Difference between stated consideration and guideline value is less than 10% as prescribed under 3rd proviso to section 50C(1), then there cannot be any addition by substituting full value of consideration.
Smt. Sonal Kumari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO in adding the cash deposited during demonetization period in assessee’s savings bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank between 15.11.2016 to 05.12.2016 amounting to Rs.7.68 lakhs. The […]
