ITAT Visakhapatnam in case of Vishnu Srinivasa Rao Kakarla Vs ITO clarifies that AO cannot travel beyond his jurisdiction to verify cash withdrawals when limited scrutiny was for verifying cash deposits.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act not imposable as provision of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to income that is treated as income from other sources.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that contributions received for charitable purpose cannot be treated as income u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act and hence, the provision of section 2(15) do not apply to the corpus fund donations of a charitable institution.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the requirement of both the issuance and service of such notice upon the assessee for the purposes of Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Order passed is liable to be quashed on account of non-service of notice u/s 147/148.
Foreign Tax Credit allowable as assessee filed return of income & statement in Form-67 within due dates as extended by Finance Ministry
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the export entitlements is an income assessable under the head profits or gains from business or profession as per clause (iiib) and (iiid) to section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that rent received from sub-letting the property is taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’ and not under the head ‘income from house property’.
3F Industries Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The ALP is to be determined on an international transaction ie., on the international loan and not for the domestic loan. Therefore, the comparable in respect of foreign currency loan in international market is LIBOR based and which is internationally recognized and adopted. In the assessee’s own case […]
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that merely by converting the share application money by allotting shares at a subsequent date cannot attract the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as there is no change in the shareholding pattern subsequent to the allotment of shares by the subsidiary company.
