ITAT Judgments - Page 20

ITAT deletes adhoc disallowance of payment to Football Players

United Mohan Bagan Football Team Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

The assessee is a private limited company mainly engaged in the activity of running a football team. It filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring Nil Income....

Read More

Section 68 not apply if Assessee proves identity, creditworthiness & genuineness

ITO Vs Sunglow Dealcom Private Limited (ITAT Kolkata)

The assessee is a company and is in the business of investment. An addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, were made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the sources of funds for the share capital received by it at a premium. On appeal the ld....

Read More

No penalty for bonafide different perspective in ALP calculation

ITO Vs Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

The assessee is one of the group companies of China based TIENS Group of Companies. The business of the assessee, is Trading/Distribution of Food Supplements and Health Care Equipments. The products dealt with by the Company are basically products manufactured at China or other places by Group concerns. Another Group Entity Tianjin Tiansh...

Read More

Addition cannot be made for mere difference between form 26AS & P&L A/c

Sree Sankeswara Foundations and Investments Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)

Sree Sankeswara Foundations and Investments Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The appellant namely M/s. Sree Sankeswara Foundations and Investments is a Partnership firm constituted under the Partnership Act.  It is engaged in the business of real estate. The return of income for the AY 2016-17 was filed. Against the said return of income, the asse...

Read More

Assessment in the name of non-existent entity was void-ab-initio

Tata Chemicals Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Since the final assessment orders after amalgamation was passed in the name of non-existent company by the AO, the same was bad in law and therefore, set aside....

Read More

Interest cannot be charged on Debit Balance of Partner if Partnership Deed prohibits the same

DCIT Vs Ms. India Housing (ITAT Kolkata)

DCIT Vs Ms. India Housing (ITAT Kolkata) We note that as per clause 10 of the Partnership Deed, no interest was to be charged or paid to the partners in respect of balances standing to the debit or credit of their capital account. As per Partnership Act, 1952, the partners can carry on any business […]...

Read More

No addition If ALP principle is satisfied qua relevant transaction

Celltick Technologies Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Celltick Technologies Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) If the arms length principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India e find that the […]...

Read More

No Section 194C TDS on reimbursement of vehicle expenses

Sri. Singonahalli Chikkarevanna Gangadharaiah Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Where a vehicle was provided by assessee to the concerned parties and assessee was to bear the vehicle expenses actually incurred by the cab owners which will be reimbursed by the parties concerned, reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by assessee could not be treated as payment subject to TDS under section 194C....

Read More

Income from cloud services was neither taxable as ‘Royalty’ nor as ‘fees for included services’

Rackspace, US INC Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Income from cloud services was neither taxable as 'royalty' nor as 'fees for included services' as the customers did not operate the equipment or have physical access to or control over the equipment used by the assessee to provide cloud support services and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc....

Read More

Benefit of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied in case of deemed registration u/s 12A

The Bengal Chamber of Commerce & Industry Vs Income-tax Officer (ITAT Kolkata)

Order under section 143(1) denying benefit of exemption under section 11 in case of granting of deemed registration by CIT after expiry of time limit of six months was contrary to the legal principles and thus, rejection of assessee’s application for rectification under section 154 was invalid....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,698)
Company Law (6,000)
Custom Duty (7,746)
DGFT (4,225)
Excise Duty (4,362)
Fema / RBI (4,188)
Finance (4,392)
Income Tax (33,089)
SEBI (3,459)
Service Tax (3,553)

Search Posts by Date

June 2020