No enquiries were conducted by the AO/learned CIT(A) even during appellate/remand proceedings . The books of accounts were not rejected by authorities below nor any defect is pointed out by the AO/learned CIT(A) in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. There is no allegation by Revenue that the assessee claimed any bogus expenses or any attempt is made to defraud Revenue. Under these circumstances keeping in view factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that aforesaid adhoc disallowance of expenses under various heads of expenses to the tune of 10% of the total expenses incurred by the assessee under these heads of expenses is not warranted
Assessee had filed appeal in manual form and such appeal had been filed within prescribed time under the Act, merely because assessee had not filed appeal in electronic form, assessee’s appeal could not be dismissed on technical grounds that too during transition period prescribed by CBDT.
Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2)(AB) on the ground of non approval of expenditure claimed by the DSIR was allowable as prior to the amendment, i.e., upto 30.06.2016, the pre-requisite for allow ability of deduction was approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. Moreover, AO disallowed the claim without due application of mind.
Since possession of land was not handed over to the Developer by assessee-society, therefore, there could not be any transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even based on part performance of the contract. Accordingly. there was no liability of capital gain tax under section 50C.
DCIT Vs IMCD Group B.V. India Branch (ITAT Mumbai)- The issue under consideration is whether the depreciation is allowed on Non- Compete Fees under section 32 of the Income Tax Act?
Provisions of section 56(2)(viia) was not applicable on acquisition of shares of a foreign company from its directors because as per rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines “balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company and the amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 was prospective in nature. If the computation provisions could not apply, the charging section also could not apply as both sections should be read together in order to make the said provisions workable in accordance with law.
Services rendered by foreign concern for introducing a client did not make-available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to assessee, therefore, related payment did not fall within the realm of “Fees for included services” as envisaged in Article 12 of the Indo-US, DTAA and payment made to foreign concern constituted its business profits within the meaning of Article 7 Indo-USA DTAA, and in the absence of any Permanent Establishment of the said foreign concern in India no taxability arose and, therefore, assessee was not liable to withhold tax under section 195.
Prohibition imposed by Indian Medical Council against acceptance of gift was on medical practitioner/doctor, and not on pharmaceutical companies, therefore, where assessee incurred expenditure towards gifts, which were bearing logo and name of the assessee, the expenditure were only for sales promotion, therefore, disallowance made by AO in respect of the expenditure was unjustified.
If at the time of giving the donation to the research Institute it had a valid registration granted under the Act, subsequent withdrawal of such approval with retrospective effect would not be a reason to deny deduction claimed by the donor under under section 35(1)(ii) for Scientific research expenditure.
Where assessee claimed that there was wrong credit entry by payer-client in Form 26AS, AO was required to examine its genuineness before making any addition on account of mismatch between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and in profit and loss account. Thus, matter was remanded for re-adjudication.
