The issue under consideration is whether the stay of demand will be granted for the 2nd time to the assessee or not?
Disallowance made by AO under section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS on discount/rebate allowed to dealers/distributors on sale of products was not justified as there was no element of work as defined under clause (iv) of Explanation to section 194C and AO had not brought on record any material for deduction of TDS under section 194H that the dealers/distributors were simply acting as intermediaries to facilitate sale of products to end users so as to infer a principal–agent relationship.
Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The perusal of record would reveal that the assessee purchased certain shares of an entity namely M/s STL as early as September, 2011. The shares were converted into demat form in assessee’s account during the month of March, 2012. The transactions took place through banking channels. The investments […]
Tata Housing Development Company Ltd vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) sub-section (5) to Section 23 has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01-4-2018, whereby notional annual value of property/part of property held has stock-in-trade has been brought to tax subject to conditions specified in the newly inserted sub-section. The amendment is substantive in nature […]
Demag Delaval Industries Turbomachinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee had made provision for warranty of Rs. 2,76,18,000/-which was claimed as expenditure. The same was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it is an unascertained liability and a contingent liability. Learned CIT(A) in principal upheld the action of the Assessing […]
DCIT Vs. HDFC Sales Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Before us the ld. DR for the revenue in his submissions vehemently submitted that the projected estimation of the provisions of expenses is projected purely on estimation and that there is mismatch of projected figures of expenses and the actual expenses incurred on various counts, which we […]
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance u/s 14A is justified even if the bank had not incurred any expenditure for the purpose of earning the interest amount?
ACIT Vs Mattel Toys (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the A.Yrs.2008-09 and 2009-10 vide order dated 08/07/2016 already held that AMP expenditure is not an international transaction and hence, no ALP adjustment could be made thereon. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we […]
DCIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the disallowance of expenses made u/s.35D? ITAT states that, the assessee claimed deduction of preliminary expenses u/s 35D which was rejected by Ld.AO in terms of decision of Hon’ble Madras […]
Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb will be sustain under law? ITAT states that, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that the notice would have to specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act namely […]
