<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (11) TMI 402 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445511</link>
    <description>The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT&#039;s revision order under section 263 regarding alleged contractual payments to a related party without tax deduction at source. The tribunal found that financial statements and assessment records clearly showed the assessee had not incurred any job work expenses but had actually earned job work income from the related party. The expenses noted by PCIT were for granule purchases, not job work services. The tribunal concluded the tax auditor&#039;s report contained an error describing &quot;granules work&quot; instead of &quot;granules purchased,&quot; which misled the PCIT. The AO&#039;s original assessment was correct, and no section 40(a)(ia) disallowance was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2023 10:05:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 402 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445511</link>
      <description>The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT&#039;s revision order under section 263 regarding alleged contractual payments to a related party without tax deduction at source. The tribunal found that financial statements and assessment records clearly showed the assessee had not incurred any job work expenses but had actually earned job work income from the related party. The expenses noted by PCIT were for granule purchases, not job work services. The tribunal concluded the tax auditor&#039;s report contained an error describing &quot;granules work&quot; instead of &quot;granules purchased,&quot; which misled the PCIT. The AO&#039;s original assessment was correct, and no section 40(a)(ia) disallowance was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>