ITAT Chennai held that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unsustainable as the matter is highly debatable.
ITAT Chennai held that it is not open for the Assessing Officer to travel beyond the reasons for selection of the scrutiny for limited scrutiny.
ITAT held that if advances received by the assessee from customers on which TDS Credits has been claimed, has been offered as income of subsequent financial years, then the same needs to be recognized as income as and when such income accrues to the assessee.
ITAT Chennai held that before concluding with regard to applicability of provisions of section 195 of the Income Tax Act, all necessary and relevant documents like cost sharing agreement/ auditor’s report/ other evidences need to be examined thoroughly. Accordingly, matter set aside with direction to AO to re-examine the claim.
ITAT Mumbai held that activity of running tuition centres can be considered as undertaken for charitable purpose under relief of the poor only if the same is proved with necessary evidence.
ITAT held that payment of Fees for training to Employees on soft skill & general topics cannot be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS)
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act sustainable as aggregate of the payments made to a single party otherwise by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft exceeds Rs.20,000/-in a day.
M. Vijayakumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the CIT(A) has not doubted the source of maturity of assessee’s father FDs of Rs.8 lakhs which was withdrawn on 01.11.2016. Admittedly, the assessee made deposit on 10.11.2016 in cash, this amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The only dispute is confirmation, which now the assessee confirmed by […]
ITAT Chennai held that amount of royalty payment to holding company for using brand name is allowable as revenue expenditure.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no material on record that assessee has sought for advice of CA. Affidavit filed by the C.A. stating that assessee was advised not to file an appeal is nothing but an afterthought Accordingly condonation of delay not granted.
