ITAT Mumbai held that reimbursement of Indian salary and other benefits to the member companies by PII pertaining to all seconded personnel, technical personnel whether posted in India or overseas is not fee for technical services within the ambit of definition of explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Hence, TDS not deductible.
ITAT Mumbai held that action of Pr. CIT invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act unjustified as order passed by the A.O. does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Neelam Nitin Sankhe Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The only reason for making addition of Rs.27.00 lacs in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs.5.00 lacs in Assessment Year 2014-15 is that the name of assessee appeared in some document found during the search action in the case of Ameya Group(supra). There is nothing on record to further […]
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of roaming charges paid/ payable to other telecom operations u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 194J justified as national roaming process essentially involves decisive human intervention.
Reasons, as recorded for reopening reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine validity of section 147 proceedings
Assessee society would be entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest received from cooperative banks.
ITAT Mumbai held that income can be said to have accrued only when there is certainty of receipts. Accordingly, impugned interest income cannot be said to be accrued as recovery of principal amount is also doubtful.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment unsustainable as there is no satisfaction of the competent authority before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that once it is established that the funds are used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business interest paid on such borrowed funds is allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
If sales are not disputed, entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed and only the gross profit on the alleged purchases to be disallowed. No penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions.
