DDIT (International Taxation) Vs M/s. SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) At the time of hearing of these appeals, it was brought to our notice that in assessment years 1999-2000 & 2000-01, identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal had reversed the orders of CIT(A) and held that […]
ITAT reiterate that the assessee is seeking to claim exemption from income tax on gains arisen from sale of land on the ground that the land was an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes by the assessee and the onus is on the assessee to prove that its case strictly falls under exemption provisions as are contained in the 1961 Act. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT states that under this issue the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The payer is under obligation to deduct the tax at source and on account of failure of payer to deduct the tax at source, the penalty interest u/s 234B cannot be imposed on the payee.
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance under 14A can be exceed the actual expenditure incurred in this regard?
The issue under consideration is whether late fee u/s 234E can be levied prior to 1.6.2015 i.e. prior to enactment of section 234E?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition for unexplained Gold made by combining the value of Gold and Silver is justified in law?
ITAT states the code of conduct prescribed by the Medical Council is applicable only to medical practitioners/ doctors registered with the MCI and does not apply to pharmaceutical companies & the healthcare sector in any manner.
Yogesh Mavjibhai Gala Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) A flat buyer acquire vested right in the flat upon payment of consideration and execution of allotment letter The holding period for the purpose of capital gain for income tax is calculated from the date of allotment of flat and not from the date of possession of flat. […]
The issue under consideration is whether decision based on a debatable point of view can be treated as a mistake apparent from the record?
It is not open to the revenue authorities to recharacterize the transaction unless it is found to be a sham or bogus transaction. While there are no specific powers vested in the TPO to recharacterize the transaction, even under the judge made law, such rechracterization can be done by the revenue authorities when the transactions are found to be substantially at variance with the stated form.
