Kanagaraj Shanmugam Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) From the fact it emerges that the assessee has stayed in India for 63 days during this year and his status, as per law, is non-resident. The assessee has worked in India for 21 days and offered proportionate salary to that extent to tax. For remaining period, the work […]
ITAT Chennai held that claim of depreciation and other related expenses is allowed to the company as the cars, registered in the name of directors, are used for the purpose of business.
M. Prabaharan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Before us, the Chartered Accountant Shri Jeevarathinam categorically admitted in writing that the duplication of assets has happened while calculating the depreciation as per Income Tax Act while computing the tax computation sheet by his staff. He admitted that while doing so, the staff has wrongly computed the deprecation value […]
ACIT Vs Joseph Selvakumar Selvan (ITAT Chennai) Upon careful consideration, it could be gathered that the return of income was already scrutinized u/s 143(3) and the issue of computation of capital gain was duly examined by Ld. AO. The requisite queries were raised by Ld. AO which were duly replied by the assessee along with […]
ITAT Chennai held that as per Sec.9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India. Hence, salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India.
Officers of department must not take advantage of ignorance of assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in claiming and securing reliefs,
Toshiba JSW Power Systems Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO had held that payment made by the assessee to non-resident towards cost of salary of seconded employees is fees for technical services as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per Article 12(4) of India & Japan DTAA and held to […]
We are of the considered opinion that estimated additions do not call for levy of penalty. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties for all the years, we allow the appeals of the assessee.
The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re¬opening the assessment, review would take place.
Kalyani Seetharaman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT noted that the PCIT has not at all given a finding that the order of the AO i.e., the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and how. We have already noted the finding of PCIT in above para 4 and noted that simple […]
