ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — December 2019

The Tribunal held that the absence of any activity by itself is not a valid reason to deny registration under Section 12AA. The genuineness of activities is to be assessed based on evidence, and non-commencement of activities does not automatically imply non-genuineness.

The Tribunal held that Section 195(1) is applicable only if the income is chargeable to tax in India. Since the commission paid was not for services rendered in India, it was not taxable in India, and thus Section 195(1) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that Section 195(1) is applicable only if the income is chargeable to tax in India. Since the commission paid was not for services rendered in India, it was not taxable in India, and thus Section 195(1) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the security advance recovery was not a trading receipt and the turnover should remain as per books. It also found no basis to revise the net profit estimation or disallow partner remuneration. The income from other sources was correctly assessed.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had not properly applied themselves to the issues. The matter concerning the Rs. 5.30 crore addition was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The software expense disallowance was also set aside to the AO for verification of facts regarding its deductibility.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had deposited the TDS within the time limit prescribed by Rule 30(1)(b)(i)(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as it stood before the amendment. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had deposited the TDS within the time limit prescribed by Rule 30(1)(b)(i)(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as it stood before the amendment. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered in default.