In the Case of ACIT v Akhil Jain, ITAT Delhi held that no interest will be levied u/s 234B during the Block Assessment by the virtue of Section 158BF.
Hon’ble Tribunal held that whenever the consideration is received in advance for the particular sale, The money will be taxed in the year in which the sale is made and not in the assessment year in which the advances are received.
TechNVision Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, where claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft P. Ltd. held that where the law provided a manner of doing certain thing then the same to be done in that manner only. The execution deviating the prescribed manner is of no cure.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Orient Express held that services of non-resident agent facilitating the completion of export obligations cannot be termed as technical services provided in India because such services are not provided for the purposes of running of the business of the assessee in India.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B4U International Holdings held that the agents of the foreign company if not exclusively working for assessee and they are not decision makers with no power of concluding contracts and as such their activities being incidental in nature.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held in the light of the main provisions of section 43B read with Explanations 3C and 3D that the interest payable to banks and other financial institutions can be allowed as deduction only ‘if such interest has been actually paid
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that the appellant failed to produce proof in support of dispatch of Form 15H to the CIT, this by itself does not entail any addition. It was only technical breach of law and the act provides for separate penal provisions for such default.
In the case of Price Waterhouse & Anr. Vs CIT, Calcutta High Court through an interim order opined that if there was no relevant material in the hands of the Income Tax authorities with which it has come to an incontrovertible conclusion that the writ petitioner no.1 was an ‘associated enterprise’
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that the claim has been denied merely because the AO has treated the transaction as speculative loss. This cannot be any reason for declining the claim of rebate u/s. 88E of the Act as the claim is allowable from the business income be it speculative or not.
