Foreign Tax Credit – ITAT held that Rules cannot override the Act and therefore the filing of Form. No 67 is not mandatory but it is directory.
Assessee cannot be faulted if the seller is not traceable and also that it is not the burden of assessee to investigate genuineness of seller or their business transaction.
The ITAT allowed the appeals and have sustained that, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015.
The ITAT observed that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be disallowed in case of not filing Form 67 prescribed under Rule 128 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 Thu by this observation ITAT have not denied the substantive benefit in case of procedural lapse
The ITAT deleted the additions made under Section 68 and 69C on the reasoning that AO was unable to establish links between the evidence collected.
ITAT Mumbai held that appellant is recognizing the revenue on the basis of percentage completion method since inception of the firm as per the Accounting Standards There is no change or modification in the accounting method hence addition unsustainable.
Supertex Industries Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undoubtedly, the assessee was referred to the board of industrial and financial Reconstruction Under the provisions of the sick industrial Companies act. Assessee was declared a sick company u/s 3 [1] [o] of the SICA. Rehabilitation scheme of the assessee was approved by the board of industrial and […]
Assessee submitted that corpus donation is in the nature of capital receipt and thus not taxable in the hands of assessee trust irrespective of not being registered under section 12A of Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that onus is on the assessee to establish that the specified expenditure incurred was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, disallowance of expenditure justified in absence of such establishment.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure incurred on such foreign travel cannot be disallowed on the reason that it was a pleasure tour and not meant for the purpose of business, as assessee furnished all the relevant details with supporting evidences together with the purpose of foreign travel.
