-
ITAT - Conversion of outstanding interest into a loan does not constitute "actual payment" of the interest so as to qualify for disallowance u/s u/s 43B(e).
DCIT vs. Jyoti Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7026 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 43B(e)
-
ITAT - Appeal in the ITAT can be filed against order of the CIT(A) on a stay application. Stay should be granted if relevant criteria of existence of prima facie arguable case, irreparable loss and financial position are not considered by the CIT(A).
Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7025 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 253
-
ITAT - Where AO ignored definition of ‘capital employed’ while verifying assessee’s claim u/s 35D, CIT’s exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 justified.
Subex Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7014 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections. 35D, 263
-
ITAT - Payment by an assessee-advertising co. to hoarding contractors for display of clients’ advertisement is subject to TDS u/s 194C and not 'rent' attracting TDS u/s 194I.
Madison Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7013 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 194I
-
HC - Excess amount refunded by assessee-builder to original purchasers upon cancellation of construction agreement is not interest u/s 2(28A), TDS u/s 194A not applicable.
Beacon Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7012 (HC-KERALA) · Section. 2(28A)
-
HC - ITAT has powers to extend stay beyond 365 days if satisfied that assessee not indulged into any delay tactics and the delay in disposing of appeal not attributable to the assessee.
DCIT. vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 7011 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
ITAT - As per proviso to section 201(3), AO was required to pass the order u/s.201(1)/201(1A) on or before 31- 03-2011.
M/s. Vamona Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6999 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections. 201(1), 201(1A), 201(3)
-
ITAT - Where the claim of the assessee that he was prevented by sufficient reason in not complying with the provisions of section 269SS, AO was directed to examine the entire issue after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Sri Venkateswara Reddy Kasireddy v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6998 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 269S
-
ITAT - Though AO was justified in entertaining doubt that the assessee is engaged in the business of money lending and the cheques have been obtained, only after the amounts were advanced. But, in the absence of any positive evidence in support of lending money to the persons, blank cheques can’t be treated as an unexplained investments.
Sri Laxmi Narayan Agarwal v. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6997 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
ITAT - Rectification order passed in a hasty manner, without giving hearing to Assessee, is clearly against the principles of natural justice.
Shri Sanjay Gupta v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6996 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient and the payments are not governed by the provisions of section 194C.
Shri M/s. Cipro Pharmaceuticals v. A.C.I.T.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6995 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 194C
-
ITAT - Since assessee did not have accumulated profits, which is one of the conditions for invoking section 2(22)(e), advance received can’t be termed as a dividend U/s. 2(22)(e).
Shri Ch. Krishna Murthy v. D.C.I.T
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6994 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 2(22)(e)
-
ITAT - All transactions in different bank accounts are required to be taken in consideration by AO during assessment proceedings.
Shri Sama Srinivas Reddy v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6993 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
ITAT - Assessee (a contractor) cannot be compelled to comply with the condition or fulfill the condition which was not stipulated at the time of sanction of the project, reopening cannot be allowed if there is any subsequent change in Law.
ACIT. V. Sahara States
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6992 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 147
-
ITAT - Where order u/s 263 has been passed without considering the explanation offered by the assessee and without applying his mind, matter should be remitted to the CIT(A) and directed him to pass fresh orders u/s 263.
Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta v. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6991 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 263
-
ITAT - HUF would come under the purview of “relative” and Assessee would not be liable to tax u/s 56(2).
Mr. Biravelli Bhaskar v. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6990 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 56(2)(vi)
-
ITAT - For ALP adjustment, marketing & liasoning services cannot be equated with advisory services.
M/s Deutsche Asset Management (India) Pvt., Mumbai Vs. DCIT – 2(1), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6989 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - S. 254(2A) third proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that extension of stay of demand should be denied beyond 365 days even when the assesseee is not at fault. ITAT should make efforts to decide stay granted appeals expeditiously.
DCIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6988 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 254(2A)
-
ITAT - Where books of account were rejected but detailed scrutiny of sundry creditors was not done , no sec. 68 additions.
Sahani Transport Corpn. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6987 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39669&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - DTAA between India and UAE - Arranger fee paid to bank for mobilizing deposits is not 'FTS' and not liable to TDS since said fee was not a fee for managerial or technical or consultancy services as per section 9(1)(vii) but merely commission.
Mashreq Bank psc v. Joint Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)- 3 (1), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6986 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=41420&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.