Income Tax : Section 40A of the Income-tax Act restricts the deduction of specified business expenses where statutory conditions are not fulfil...
Income Tax : Understand nuances of claiming tax deductions on payments to relatives in business. Learn how Section 40A(2) of Income Tax Act, 19...
Income Tax : The issue under consideration in this write up is whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), 40A & 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 are at...
Income Tax : Introduction Section 40A(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with payments to relatives and associated persons. It provides that wher...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 80-IA(10) cannot be sustained without proving the statutory conditi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A must be computed only with reference to investments that actually yielded exe...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a ₹14.20 crore addition under Section 68, holding that the AO relied on old search findings an...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT ruled that transfer of professional fees between branches through journal entries did not attract TDS liability. The T...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditwo...
Income Tax : Notification No. 8/2020-Income-Tax- CBDT has notified Other electronic modes by inserting New Income TAx Rule 6ABBA. It also amend...
The ITAT held that a transfer pricing adjustment under Section 80-IA(10) cannot be sustained without proving the statutory conditions, including close connection, arranged business transactions, and more than ordinary profits. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment for lack of foundational evidence.
Section 40A of the Income-tax Act restricts the deduction of specified business expenses where statutory conditions are not fulfilled, including excessive payments to related parties and cash payments exceeding prescribed thresholds. The provisions also disallow certain gratuity provisions, contributions to non-statutory employee funds, and notional losses on specified securities.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under Section 14A must be computed only with reference to investments that actually yielded exempt income. The Tribunal also deleted interest disallowance after finding that the assessee’s interest-free funds exceeded its investments.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a ₹14.20 crore addition under Section 68, holding that the AO relied on old search findings and failed to bring any direct evidence against the assessee’s loan transactions.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that transfer of professional fees between branches through journal entries did not attract TDS liability. The Tribunal accepted ICAI records confirming the existence of the Ahmedabad branch.
ITAT Bangalore held that NIL taxable income disclosed by an Alternative Investment Fund does not automatically negate its creditworthiness. The Tribunal recognized the statutory pass-through taxation mechanism applicable to AIF structures.
The issue was whether commission payments were genuine business expenses. The Tribunal held that disallowance based on non-response and suspicion was not justified. The key takeaway is that conjectures cannot replace evidence in tax assessments.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer wrongly compared dissimilar email marketing services to determine excess payment. The ruling clarifies that only comparable services can be used for arm’s length evaluation, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal reversed additions made towards alleged suppressed rent and bogus salary expenses. It emphasized factual consistency, business necessity, and absence of tax avoidance in granting relief to the assessee.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked when the Assessing Officer had accepted a legally possible view. The Tribunal held that where two views exist and the AO adopts one, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
