ITAT Indore held that non-deduction of TDS due to genuine and bona fide belief is reasonable cause under section 273B and accordingly penalty u/s 271C not imposable.
SC held that assessee was not the owner of bitumen for Section 69A, and bitumen could not be classified as an ‘other valuable article’ under section 69A.
Krishna Das Agarwal Vs DDIT/ADIT (Inv.) (ITAT Jaipur) Black Money Act – Company Is a Separate Legal Entity and The Assessee Cannot Be Held to Be Beneficial Owner Ipso-Facto Due to Majority Shareholding / Directorship.- FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR These bunch of five appeals consist of one appeal filed by the […]
ITAT Delhi – Mere non-construction of property cannot be a ground to deny benefit u/s 54F. The beneficial nature and the object of the provision is ought to be considered by the Income Tax Authorities
Section 206AA cannot be understood to override the charging Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. It has further held that the provision in Section 206-AA has to be read down to mean that where the deductee i.e., the overseas resident business concern conduct sits operation from a territory, whose Government has entered into a DTAA with India, the rate of taxation would be as dictated by the provisions of the treaty.
Sri Priyanga Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Madras High Court) In a case between Sri Priyanga Agencies and the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, the Madras High Court has issued a common order. The court has disposed of the main writ petition and two related Writ Miscellaneous Petitions (WMPs). […]
ITAT Jaipur held that being a debatable issue there was a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on specified transactions and accordingly penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Delhi held that NAV method adopted by the assessee is one of the recognized methods provided in rule 11UA of the Rules. Accordingly, the addition made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act, is hereby directed to be deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that as professional and consultation charges & purchase of fixed assets are capitalized in the books of accounts, it should not be considered for computation of proportionate TP adjustment.
ITAT Pune held that the conclusion arrived by AO on his satisfaction of details furnished by the assessee, cannot be found to be erroneous simply because Pr. CIT does not feel satisfied with the said conclusion. Accordingly, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unjustified.
