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 recent ITAT Delhi ruling in the Shantiniketan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case allows high-interest payments under commercial expedience, refuting disallowance under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of expenditure on adhoc basis, as a percentage of gross profit, without any specific findings is baseless and liable to be deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that expenditure towards Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP) is allowable deduction u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that for invoking provisions of section 40A(2)(b), AO has to bring on record some comparable cases of similar nature to allege that hire charges paid by the assessee is unreasonable and excessive, when compared to market rates. In absence of the same, addition is unsustainable.
The profit margin forgone by assessee could not be held to be expenditure in creating intangible or goodwill as there was no expenditure incurred by assessee except those that were set out in the profit and loss account and disallowing such expenditure by AO and consequently arriving at a positive total income chargeable to tax was without any basis and not in accordance with law.
A.O while working out disallowance under section 40A(2)(b), had though observed that the payment of salary to the aforementioned two related parties in question was found to be excessive, but had fundamentally erred by not opining as to what as per him was the fair market value of the service which were being rendered by the aforementioned related persons, considering which the payments made to them by the assessee were to held as excessive.
PCIT Vs Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) No Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS shortfall due to any difference of opinion Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as […]
R R M Trading Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that AO has restricted the payment of interest to the related parties @ 18% to 12% on the ground that it is excessive and unreasonable looking to the fact that assessee has paid interest to the partners @ 12% which is in accordance with […]
Balani Infotech P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is for an assessee as a businessman to come to a conclusion as to what remuneration of the salary is to be paid to the employees and the reasonableness of the expenses is to be judged from the angle of a businessman rather than from angle […]
Carmel Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the Tribunal in the case of The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd., supra, has considered the issue of applicability of provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act to the directors remuneration and held that this provision will not apply to the directors payment for holding […]
