<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TaxGuru &#187; Income Tax Case Laws</title>
	<atom:link href="http://taxguru.in/category/income-tax-case-laws/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://taxguru.in</link>
	<description>Complete Tax Solution</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:20:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Section 143(3) assessment order without AO’s signature is Void &#8211; ITAT Mumbai</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-1433-assessment-order-aos-signature-void-itat-mumbai.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-1433-assessment-order-aos-signature-void-itat-mumbai.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:59:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 143(3)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vijay Corporation Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) - Provisions of Sec. 143(3) of the Act contemplates that the AO shall pass an order of assessment in writing. The requirement of signature of the AO is therefore a legal requirement. The omission to sign the order of assessmenet cannot be explained by relying on the provisions of Sec.292B of the Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-1433-assessment-order-aos-signature-void-itat-mumbai.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Disallowance by CIT(A) of expense without any specific opportunity to the assessee in the matter of rendering of services not justified</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/disallowance-cita-expense-specific-opportunity-assessee-matter-rendering-services-justified.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/disallowance-cita-expense-specific-opportunity-assessee-matter-rendering-services-justified.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47636</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Optsoe Consultant Private Limited Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) - The dispute is regarding allowability of expenditure amounting to Rs.40,20,822/- on account of payments made to the directors as sub-contract charges. The assessee co had been incorporated for undertaking contracts for providing various liaisoning activities in the telecom sector. It had entered into a contract with Chinese company, M/s. ZTE Corporation for providing such services as per which it had received contract charges of Rs.41,18,969/-. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/disallowance-cita-expense-specific-opportunity-assessee-matter-rendering-services-justified.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) &#8211; No reopening u/s 147 in absence of &#8216;new material&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-147-applies-section-1431-section-1433-reopening-147-absence-new-material.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-147-applies-section-1431-section-1433-reopening-147-absence-new-material.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 143(1)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 143(3)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 147]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HV Transmissions Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) - Section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that a reassessment notice issued u/s 148 in a case where the original assessment was made u/s 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to challenge the notice on the ground that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-147-applies-section-1431-section-1433-reopening-147-absence-new-material.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Finance Lease &#8211;  Lease equalization charge as per ICAI Guidelines is allowable</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/finance-lease-lease-equalization-charge-icai-guidelines-allowable.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/finance-lease-lease-equalization-charge-icai-guidelines-allowable.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finance lease]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtual Soft Systems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd (Delhi High Court) - Lease rental in monetary terms is a sum total of  the financing charge and the amount embedded in it in the form of the capital sum. What the assessee needs to do, while offering for tax income derived from lease is, to separate the financing charge from the amount recovered towards capital, that is, the capital recovery amount. The financing change is determined by applying the IRR to the net investment made in the asset.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/finance-lease-lease-equalization-charge-icai-guidelines-allowable.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S. 80HHC &#8211; SC reverses Bomaby HC judgment in Kalpataru case, DEPB Face value covered U/s. 28(iiib)</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-80hhc-sc-reverses-bomaby-hc-judgment-kalpataru-colours-chemicals-depb-face-covered-28iiib.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-80hhc-sc-reverses-bomaby-hc-judgment-kalpataru-colours-chemicals-depb-face-covered-28iiib.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombay high court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book scheme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customs duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deduction under Section 80HHC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[depb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DEPB entitlement pass book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DEPB sale proceeds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[depb scheme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[export turnover]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[face value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 80HHC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self consumption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court judgements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topman Exports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47544</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT vs Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (SC) - Supreme Court has on 08.02.2012 reversed Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals  and confirming the decision of Special bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO  held as follows:-  Objective of DEPB scheme is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty on the import content of the export products. Hence, it has direct nexus with the cost of the imports made by an exporter for manufacturing the export products.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section-80hhc-sc-reverses-bomaby-hc-judgment-kalpataru-colours-chemicals-depb-face-covered-28iiib.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Depreciation allowed on intangible assets acquired on or after 1st April, 1998 &#8211; Expenditure on acquiring database cannot be claimed as revenue expenditure</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/depreciation-allowed-intangible-assets-acquired-1st-april-1998-expenditure-acquiring-database-claimed-revenue-expenditure.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/depreciation-allowed-intangible-assets-acquired-1st-april-1998-expenditure-acquiring-database-claimed-revenue-expenditure.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:28:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ACIT Vs American Express Services India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) - We find that it is not in dispute that the transaction between the assessee and American Express Bank, inter alia, including for purchase of Acquired Business Database were subjected to transfer pricing scrutiny and, the Transfer Pricing Officer vide order dated 15.2.2005 has accepted the transaction without making any adjustment to the arms length price. In this view of the matter and as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oracle India Pvt Ltd (243 CTR 103), when the price fixed is acceptable as arms length price by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92 of the Act, it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to disturb that price so paid as unreasonable.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/depreciation-allowed-intangible-assets-acquired-1st-april-1998-expenditure-acquiring-database-claimed-revenue-expenditure.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Assessee to whom DTAA applies, the provisions of Income Act shall applied to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-dtaa-applies-provisions-income-act-applied-extent-beneficial-assessee.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-dtaa-applies-provisions-income-act-applied-extent-beneficial-assessee.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:21:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47554</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Intelsat Corporation Vs. ADIT (International Taxation) -  We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We have already mentioned that there is a distinguishable feature namely that the assessee has received payments from persons residents in India. However, the receipts have been taxed u/s 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2, Clause (vi) thereunder. The decision in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Limited is to the contrary and in favour of the assessee. It is also a matter of fact on record that the assessee is a tax resident of USA and, therefore, the provisions contained in the DTAA are applicable. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-dtaa-applies-provisions-income-act-applied-extent-beneficial-assessee.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Loss from windmill business can be set off against other heads of income</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/loss-windmill-business-set-heads-income.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/loss-windmill-business-set-heads-income.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:48:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DCIT Vs. M/s. Bellad &#038; Co. (ITAT Bangalore) -  The assessee is a partnership firm dealing in automobiles and Sony products and also into generation of electricity from windmills. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring income of Rs.11,52,410/- after setting off of depreciation loss  pertaining to windmill installed during the financial year relevant to assessment year under appeal. The AO, in the assessment completed, disallowed loss of Rs. 1,22,30,626/-. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/loss-windmill-business-set-heads-income.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank Guarantee Commission not liable to TDS U/s. 194H as it is is not a transaction between principal and agent</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/bank-guarantee-commission-liable-tds-194h-transaction-principal-agent.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/bank-guarantee-commission-liable-tds-194h-transaction-principal-agent.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 194H]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 201(1)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 201(1A)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kotak Securities Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -  When we look at the connotations of expression ‘commission or brokerage’ in its cognate sense, as in the light of the principle of noscitur a sociis as we are obliged to, in our considered view, scope of expression ‘commission’, for this purpose, will be confined to ‘an allowance, recompense or reward made to agents, factors and brokers and others for effecting sales and carrying out business transactions’ and shall not extend to the payments, such as ‘bank guarantee commission’, which are in the nature of fees for services rendered or product offered by the recipient of such payments on principal to principal basis. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/bank-guarantee-commission-liable-tds-194h-transaction-principal-agent.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Once tax has not been deducted and even if such tax has been paid by the deductee, disallowance u/s.40[a][ia] can still be made.</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tax-deducted-tax-paid-deductee-disallowance-us40aia.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tax-deducted-tax-paid-deductee-disallowance-us40aia.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ACIT vs. DICGC Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) - Sec.201 deals with the mode of recovery of taxes and once tax due has already been paid then the same demand cannot be enforced again. However, sec.40[a][ia] deals with the disallowance of expenditure itself. Therefore, merely by invoking the Heydon's principle the statutory provisions cannot be rendered redundant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once tax has not been deducted and even if such tax has been paid by the deductee, disallowance u/s.40[a][ia] can still be made.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tax-deducted-tax-paid-deductee-disallowance-us40aia.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>For section115JA/JB Deduction U/s. 80HHC to be computed with reference to the net profits in the profit and loss account &#8211; SC</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section115jajb-deduction-80hhc-computed-reference-net-profits-profit-loss-account-sc.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section115jajb-deduction-80hhc-computed-reference-net-profits-profit-loss-account-sc.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 80HHC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section115JA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section115JB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court judgements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Al-Kabeer Exports Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)- Reversing the High Court Decision and restoring the Tribunal Special bench Decision ,  It was held that in view of  SC Court&#8217;s Order in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Bhari Information Technology Systems (P) Ltd. [S.L.P. (C) No.33750 of 2009] Tribunal was  justified in coming to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/section115jajb-deduction-80hhc-computed-reference-net-profits-profit-loss-account-sc.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIT (A) Guilty of ‘Contempt’ For Not Following ITAT Verdict</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/cit-guilty-contempt-itat-verdict.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/cit-guilty-contempt-itat-verdict.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool vs. DCIT (ITAT Vizag) - Since the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is exercising judicial functions, it is now settled that it has all powers of Court, i.e. it can issue summons and exercise all the powers vested in the Income tax authorities under section 131 of the Income tax Act. Hence any proceeding before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/cit-guilty-contempt-itat-verdict.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It is not permissible for the executing authority to look beyond the order it is required to execute</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/permissible-executing-authority-order-required-execute.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/permissible-executing-authority-order-required-execute.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 263]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oriental Bank of Commerce (Delhi HC) - We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/permissible-executing-authority-order-required-execute.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-plan-affairs-manner-result-payment-tax.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-plan-affairs-manner-result-payment-tax.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT Vs. Rajan Nanda (Delhi HC) -Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act.  The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and to see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-plan-affairs-manner-result-payment-tax.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Penalty for wrong / non furnishing of PAN in TDS return if Asseee files later revised return with Correct PAN</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/penalty-wrong-furnishing-pan-tds-return-asseee-files-revised-return-correct-pan.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/penalty-wrong-furnishing-pan-tds-return-asseee-files-revised-return-correct-pan.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 272B]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TDS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ITO (TDS) Panchkula v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) it is apparent from the record that the assessee deducted TDS correctly and revised the PAN and filed revised statement in Form No. 26Q, hence there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 139A of the Act. Even otherwise the assessee did not derive any benefit whatsoever, by filing the wrong PANs and PAN was corrected after ascertaining the same from the respective deductees. In our view the assessee has proved that there was reasonable cause for alleged failure and hence no penalty is leviable]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/penalty-wrong-furnishing-pan-tds-return-asseee-files-revised-return-correct-pan.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Provisions written back can not be added to income if provision was not allowed in the earlier year</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/provisions-written-added-income-provision-allowed-earlier-year.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/provisions-written-added-income-provision-allowed-earlier-year.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:10:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 41(1)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT VS. Mohan Meakin Ltd. (Delhi HC) - In the case of the uncashed cheques amount to Rs.1,97,758/-, the finding of the Tribunal is that that there was no claim for deduction in any of the earlier years and, therefore, the amount cannot be added under Section 41(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute, as it cannot be, that the amount of uncashed cheques was not allowed as deduction in any of the earlier assessment years. As per the assessee this represents the cheques received and remaining on hand on the last day of the accounting period. Tribunal has accepted this stand. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have not stated why the stand of the assessee was not acceptable. Revenue has also not stated and averred that the assessment order now passed, this aspect was not considered and examined. In these circumstances, Section 41(1) can hardly have any application. We accordingly, uphold the decision of the Tribunal deleting the addition. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/provisions-written-added-income-provision-allowed-earlier-year.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If relationship of principal and an agent exsit then TDS is deductible on Commission</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/relationship-principal-agent-exsit-tds-deductible-commission.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/relationship-principal-agent-exsit-tds-deductible-commission.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT Vs.  Mother Dairy India Ltd. (Delhi HC) -  It is a well-settled proposition that if the property in the goods is transferred and gets vested in the concessionaire at the time of the delivery then he is thereafter liable for the same and would be dealing with them in his own right as a principal and not as an agent of the Dairy. The clauses of the agreements show that there is an actual sale, and not mere delivery of the milk and the other products to the concessionaire.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/relationship-principal-agent-exsit-tds-deductible-commission.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Addition U/s. 68 for non reply of Notice U/s. 133(6) &#8211; ITAT remanded matter Back to A.O.</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/addition-68-reply-notice-1336-itat-remanded-matter-ao.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/addition-68-reply-notice-1336-itat-remanded-matter-ao.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ITO v.  JMD Global (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) - Before the ld CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that all the allottees were in Calcutta and as the notice u/s 133(6) were sent towards the fag end of the time barring period, the same could not be replied by those parties before the assessment order was passed. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/addition-68-reply-notice-1336-itat-remanded-matter-ao.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ITAT reduces addition made by AO after rejecting the books of accounts</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-reduces-addition-ao-rejecting-books-accounts.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-reduces-addition-ao-rejecting-books-accounts.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rajesh Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) - It is found that there were discrepancies in the book result filed, traced on the scrutiny of the books made by the Assessing Officer which could not be properly replied/explained. So, action of the  Assessing Officer in rejecting the book result and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A) in view of the facts and circumstances is found to be justified and proper which action is upheld. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/itat-reduces-addition-ao-rejecting-books-accounts.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Payment for shrink wrapped software/ off-the-shelf software amounts to &#8216;royalty&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-shrink-wrapped-software-offtheshelf-software-amounts-royalty.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-shrink-wrapped-software-offtheshelf-software-amounts-royalty.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47380</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT v. Synopsys International Old Ltd(Karnataka High Court) - Payment for shrink wrapped software/off-the­ shelf software amounts to 'royalty' within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as under Article 12 of the India-Ireland tax treaty.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-shrink-wrapped-software-offtheshelf-software-amounts-royalty.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taxability of Income from Leasing of Hotel with provision and maintenance of various facilities and amenities</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-income-leasing-hotel-provision-maintenance-facilities-amenities.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-income-leasing-hotel-provision-maintenance-facilities-amenities.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47379</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[M/s. Kenton Leisure Services, P. Ltd.  Vs. DCIT (ITAT Cochin) - It was held that  lease rental income arising from agreements for letting on lease hostel premises along with provision and maintenance of various facilities and amenities would be taxable under the head 'Income from Business' as against 'Income from House Property'.The characterisation of lease rental income as 'Income from Business' comes as a relief to taxpayers who lease out property along with provision of facilities / amenities. However, this issue is fact specific and it would be important for taxpayers to bear the above principles in mind while determining the taxability of such revenue streams.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-income-leasing-hotel-provision-maintenance-facilities-amenities.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Receipt of retention money by furnishing bank guarantee not chargeable to tax as it accrues only on a successful completion of a contract</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/receipt-retention-money-furnishing-bank-guarantee-chargeable-tax-accrues-successful-completion-contract.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/receipt-retention-money-furnishing-bank-guarantee-chargeable-tax-accrues-successful-completion-contract.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ADIT Vs. Ballast Nadam Dredging (ITAT Mumbai) - It was held that retention money withheld by the contractee pending completion of contract work does not accrue to the assessee/contractor in the year in which the amount is retained. We also observe that similar issue was also considered by ITAT in the case of Spirax Marshall Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that receipt of retention money against furnishing bank guarantee cannot partake character of income since it cannot be apportioned until guarantee period was over. The retention money may be received by the assessee; it cannot be apportioned until expiry of warranty period. We observe that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Yatindra and Co. (supra) held that an amount received by assessee against bank guarantee was not accrued to the assessee during the year as no absolute right to receive the amount at that stage vested.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/receipt-retention-money-furnishing-bank-guarantee-chargeable-tax-accrues-successful-completion-contract.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consideration for transfer of limited right to use the know-how taxed as royalty income</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-transfer-limited-knowhow-taxed-royalty-income.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-transfer-limited-knowhow-taxed-royalty-income.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:19:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Atlas Copco AB of Sweden v. CIT (Bombay High Court) - It was held that Amount received by the taxpayer was on account of right to use the know-how for a specified period and there was no outright transfer of know-how. Therefore, amount received was royalty and taxable in India.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-transfer-limited-knowhow-taxed-royalty-income.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expression &#8216;consultancy&#8217; service involves giving of an advice or advisory services by a professional &#8211; AAR</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/expression-consultancy-service-involves-giving-advice-advisory-services-professional-aar.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/expression-consultancy-service-involves-giving-advice-advisory-services-professional-aar.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AAR rulings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Re Shell Technology India Private Limited (AAR) - It cannot be denied that the Applicant receives services in the form of general finance advice, Taxation advice, legal advice, advice on Information Technology, media advice, assistance in contract and procurement and assistance in Marketing. It is trite that these advisory services would be consultancy services if the element of expertise or special knowledge on the part of the consultant is established. In the facts of the case before us, SIPCL, the consultant in the present case, is in the business of providing advice and services to various Shell Operating companies. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/expression-consultancy-service-involves-giving-advice-advisory-services-professional-aar.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Income-tax Authorities have no jurisdiction to tax payment made outside for supplies taking place outside the country</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/incometax-authorities-jurisdiction-tax-payment-supplies-place-country.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/incometax-authorities-jurisdiction-tax-payment-supplies-place-country.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AAR rulings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47375</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Re SEPCO III Electric Power Construction (AAR) - The applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of China on 26.3.2009. The applicant, among other things, is a supplier of equipments for Electric Power Projects. On 26.3.2009, the applicant entered into a contract with M/s Jhajjar Power Limited, for supplying of equipments for the Haryana Power Project. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/incometax-authorities-jurisdiction-tax-payment-supplies-place-country.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business income accruing or arising to the applicant can be taxed in India only in respect of such operations carried out in India &#8211; AAR</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/business-income-accruing-arising-applicant-taxed-india-respect-operations-carried-india-aar.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/business-income-accruing-arising-applicant-taxed-india-respect-operations-carried-india-aar.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AAR rulings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47374</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CTCI Overseas Corporation Ltd.  In Re (AAR) -  In the present case, though the applicant has a business connection in India, it has not carried out any part of the business relating to offshore supplies in India. Under the  deeming provision of section 9(1) read with Explanation 1(a), any business income accruing or arising to the applicant can be taxed in India only in respect of such operations carried out in India. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/business-income-accruing-arising-applicant-taxed-india-respect-operations-carried-india-aar.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interrogation by Income tax officials till late night is torture &amp; violation of human rights</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interrogation-income-tax-officials-late-night-torture-violation-human-rights.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interrogation-income-tax-officials-late-night-torture-violation-human-rights.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CCIT vs. Rajendra Singh (Patna High Court) -   Even assuming that there were temporary breaks in course of interrogation which continued for 42 hours, it is not in dispute that even on the second night of search and survey on 10.9.2010, the interrogations continued till 3 A.M. and the respondent no.3 and his family members were made to remain awake when it was time for sleep.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/interrogation-income-tax-officials-late-night-torture-violation-human-rights.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If the entire demand had been deleted the penalty imposed too deserves to be deleted</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/entire-demand-deleted-penalty-imposed-deserves-deleted.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/entire-demand-deleted-penalty-imposed-deserves-deleted.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:28:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JDIT  Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.  (ITAT Delhi) - The stand taken by the appellant in its return of income has been upheld by the ld. High Court. Since, the quantum additions in both the assessment years under appeal has already been deleted by the ld. ITAT, no penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) for either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Ys. 2003-04 &#038; 2004-05. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the entire addition has been deleted the order of the CIT(A) holding that the penalty order does not survive cannot be faulted with.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/entire-demand-deleted-penalty-imposed-deserves-deleted.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If business was set up during the year Assessee entitled to benefit of carry forward of business loss and depreciation</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/business-set-year-assessee-entitled-benefit-carry-business-loss-depreciation.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/business-set-year-assessee-entitled-benefit-carry-business-loss-depreciation.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ITO Vs.  Berger Impex India (ITAT Delhi) - CIT (A) after considering all these submissions has observed that the assessee had started efforts and other activities for its trade though there is no purchase and sale during the initial period. The assessee had given employment to seven persons for marketing activities and has set up infrastructure for running the business at Chennai. The shop rent, electricity bill and telephone bills have been paid and on these facts it cannot be denied that the assessee had commenced the business. In the trade activity there is no preoperative period as the same is required in manufacturing activity and, thus, he has held that the assessee is entitled to have the benefit of carry forward of business loss and depreciation and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the loss claimed by the assessee.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/business-set-year-assessee-entitled-benefit-carry-business-loss-depreciation.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Payment under inter-linked contracts for manufacturing attracts TDS u/s 194C</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-interlinked-contracts-manufacturing-attracts-tds-194c.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-interlinked-contracts-manufacturing-attracts-tds-194c.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 194C]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 201(1A)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT Vs. Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd.  (HC of Karnataka) -  We find that this is not simply a situation of a product manufactured to the specifications of the assessee, being sold to the assessee at the price fixed by the supplier but this is a situation where a product manufactured out of raw materials supplied by a foreign company who had direct interest in the assessee company so manufactured to the specification of the assessee company utilising the technical know-how supplied by it and also labelling the product with the brand name of the assessee and supplying the entire product only to the assessee company]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-interlinked-contracts-manufacturing-attracts-tds-194c.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Genuineness of transaction when identity of the share holders has not been established and notice u/s. 133(6) remained unserved</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/genuineness-transaction-identity-share-holders-established-notice-1336-remained-unserved.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/genuineness-transaction-identity-share-holders-established-notice-1336-remained-unserved.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 133(6)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ACIT Vs. M/s Sikka Papers Mills Ltd.  (ITAT Delhi) -In this case the identity of the share holders has not been established in order to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, Assessing Officer issued commission u/s. 131(d) to the departmental officers in Lucknow and Agra as well as and asked for information 133(6) of the Act directly from the share applicants. The letters issued by registered post to the aforesaid share applicant companies u/s. 133(6) remained unserved while the departmental officers found that no such companies existed at the given address.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/genuineness-transaction-identity-share-holders-established-notice-1336-remained-unserved.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>For exercise of power U/s. 263, it is mandatory that order passed by AO should be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exercise-power-section-263-act-mandatory-order-passed-assessing-officer-erroneous-prejudicial-interest-revenue.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exercise-power-section-263-act-mandatory-order-passed-assessing-officer-erroneous-prejudicial-interest-revenue.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 147]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 148]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 263]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exercise-power-section-263-act-mandatory-order-passed-assessing-officer-erroneous-prejudicial-interest-revenue.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal filed by the assessee liable to be unadmitted/dismissed, for non attendance</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/appeal-filed-assessee-liable-unadmitteddismissed-attendance.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/appeal-filed-assessee-liable-unadmitteddismissed-attendance.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:55:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PTC India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) - This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.9.2011 of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was placed before the Bench. The date of hearing was intimated to the assessee on the date appeal was filed. Signatures of the person filing the appeal in the Registry are available on record as such the appeal was passed over twice.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/appeal-filed-assessee-liable-unadmitteddismissed-attendance.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Assessee cannot be held to be a trader in shares with respect to delivery basis transaction</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-held-trader-shares-respect-delivery-basis-transaction.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-held-trader-shares-respect-delivery-basis-transaction.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ACIT Vs. Mrs. Rajpal Sethi (ITAT Mumbai) - AO in the case of assessee while making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 has accepted the short term capital gain and the long term capital gain on sale of shares vide order dated 22.12.2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee’s case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Satpal Singh Sethi (supra). This being so and in the absence of any distinguishing features or contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforementioned cases, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the AO to accept the appellant’s claim of short term capital gain and long term capital gain on share transactions, where the delivery has been taken or given and Security Transaction Tax has been paid. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-held-trader-shares-respect-delivery-basis-transaction.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Tax On Society Redevelopment Gains</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tax-society-redevelopment-gains.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tax-society-redevelopment-gains.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kushal K. Bangia vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -  In principle, though the scope of 'income' in s. 2(24) is very wide, a capital receipt is not chargeable to tax as income unless there is a specific provision to that effect. As the residential flat owned by the assessee in the society’s building was a capital asset in his hands, the compensation was a capital receipt. The department’s argument that the cash compensation was a 'share in profits earned by the developer' is not acceptable because it proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of the payer determines the nature in the hands of the recipient. However, as the said receipt reduced the cost of acquisition of the new flat, it had to be taken into when computing the gains from a transfer thereof in the future]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tax-society-redevelopment-gains.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transfer Pricing &#8211; TPO can rely on &#8216;contemporaneous&#8217; data even if not available at specified date &#8211; ITAT Bangalore</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-pricing-tpo-rely-contemporaneous-data-date-itat-bangalore.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-pricing-tpo-rely-contemporaneous-data-date-itat-bangalore.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transfer Pricing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) - As far as the data to be used by the TPO while determining the ALP was concerned, it is observed that it is covered by the provisions of rule 10D sub-rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules. Section 92 C provides that the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods being the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors for computing the ALP and also any other method as may be prescribed by the Board. S. 92D provides that (i) every person who has entered into an international transaction shall maintain and keep such information and documents in respect thereof;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-pricing-tpo-rely-contemporaneous-data-date-itat-bangalore.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>For rejecting the view taken in earlier assessment years, there must be a change in the fact situation or a material change in law</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rejecting-view-earlier-assessment-years-change-fact-situation-material-change-law.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rejecting-view-earlier-assessment-years-change-fact-situation-material-change-law.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[res judicta]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ACIT Vs. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.  (ITAT Delhi) -   Hon’ble Delhi High Court in A.R.J. Security Printers' case [2003] 264 ITR 276 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi ), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/rejecting-view-earlier-assessment-years-change-fact-situation-material-change-law.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIT Appeal to consider documents submitted by the Assessee before passing Ex-parte Order</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/cit-appeal-documents-submitted-assessee-passing-exparte-order.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/cit-appeal-documents-submitted-assessee-passing-exparte-order.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rujuta N.Shah V/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai) - At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that no proper and due opportunity was not provided to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) inasmuch as, the ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the paper book filed by the assessee, while deciding the appeal ex-parte, therefore, in the interest of justice the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) be set aside to his file to decide the same afresh which was not objected to by the ld. DR. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/cit-appeal-documents-submitted-assessee-passing-exparte-order.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Units of mutual funds are not generally trading instrument &#8211; ITAT Mumbai</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/units-of-mutual-funds-are-not-generally-trading-instrument-itat-mumbai.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/units-of-mutual-funds-are-not-generally-trading-instrument-itat-mumbai.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITAT judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shri Dev Ashok Karvat Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In Mr.Chetan R.Parikh V/s ITO in ITA No.1569/Mum/2010 (AY:2006-07) dated 25.5.2011, it has been held by the Tribunal that the units of mutual funds are not generally a trading instrument because of comparatively low fluctuation and number of transactions in units are also not large.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/units-of-mutual-funds-are-not-generally-trading-instrument-itat-mumbai.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TDS not deductible on freight chargers shown separately in Goods Purchase Bill</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tds-deductible-freight-chargers-shown-separately-goods-purchase-bill.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tds-deductible-freight-chargers-shown-separately-goods-purchase-bill.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:30:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 194C]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT v. Bhagwati Steels -(Punjab &#038; Haryana HC) -In the instant case, it was held that the payment of freight charges by the assessee to the truck drivers was based on individual GRs which represented individual and separate contracts and there was no single contract for carriage or transportation of goods referred to between assessee and the impugned parties which would make the assessee liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194C of the Act. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/tds-deductible-freight-chargers-shown-separately-goods-purchase-bill.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If agreement was on principal-to-principal basis, payments made by the assessee to the distributor cannot be treated as commission liable for TDS U/s. 194H</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/agreement-principaltoprincipal-basis-payments-assessee-distributor-treated-commission-liable-tds-194h.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/agreement-principaltoprincipal-basis-payments-assessee-distributor-treated-commission-liable-tds-194h.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 194H]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT v. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC) -In the insantt case, it was held that sInce the agreement between the assessee and the distributor clearly stated that the agreement was on principal-to-principal basis, payments made by the assessee to the distributor were incentives and discounts and were not to be treated as commission liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/agreement-principaltoprincipal-basis-payments-assessee-distributor-treated-commission-liable-tds-194h.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If asseee repaid the short term loan received by him the said amount could not be treated as income of assessee</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/asseee-repaid-short-term-loan-received-amount-treated-income-assessee.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/asseee-repaid-short-term-loan-received-amount-treated-income-assessee.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 56(2)(v)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT v. Saranapal Singh(HUF) -(Punjab &#038; Haryana Court) - In the instant case, it was held that where the assessee had received a certain amount as short term loan and was duly repaid the said amount not the repaid, could be treated as income of assessee under section 56(2)(v) of the Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/asseee-repaid-short-term-loan-received-amount-treated-income-assessee.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In the absence of nexus between Education expenditure incurred for Director’s son and business of assessee company the same is not deductible</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/absence-nexus-education-expenditure-incurred-directors-son-business-assessee-company-deductible.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/absence-nexus-education-expenditure-incurred-directors-son-business-assessee-company-deductible.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[    Echjay Forgings Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 328 ITR 286 (Bombay High Court)Can expenditure incurred by a company on higher studies of the director’s son abroad be claimed as business expenditure under section 37 on the contention that he was appointed as a trainee in the company under 'apprentice training scheme', where there was no proof of existence of such scheme?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/absence-nexus-education-expenditure-incurred-directors-son-business-assessee-company-deductible.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taxability of waiver of principal amount of loan taken for purchase of capital asset or remission of trading liability</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-waiver-principal-amount-loan-purchase-capital-asset-remission-trading-liability.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-waiver-principal-amount-loan-purchase-capital-asset-remission-trading-liability.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 41(1)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Iskraemeco Regent Ltd. v. CIT (Madras High Court) The assessee company, engaged in the business of development, manufacturing and marketing of electro-mechanical and static energy meters, took a bank loan for purchase of capital assets. The grant of bank loan for purchase of a capital asset is a capital receipt and not a trading receipt. The provisions of section 41(1) are attracted only in case of remission of a trading liability. Since the loan was taken for purchase of capital assets, waiver of a portion of principal would not amount to remission of a trading liability to attract the provisions of section 41(1). Further, such waiver cannot be treated as a benefit arising out of business and consequently, section 28(iv) will not apply in respect of such loan transaction.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/taxability-waiver-principal-amount-loan-purchase-capital-asset-remission-trading-liability.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can an assessee engaged in letting out of rooms in a lodging house also treat the income from renting of a building to bank on long term lease as business income?</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-engaged-letting-rooms-lodging-house-treat-income-renting-building-bank-long-term-lease-business-income.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-engaged-letting-rooms-lodging-house-treat-income-renting-building-bank-long-term-lease-business-income.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Joseph George and Co. v. ITO (2010) 328 ITR 161 (Kerala High Court)-  On the above issue, it was decided that while lodging is a business, however, letting out of building to the bank on long-term lease could not be treated as business. Therefore, the rental income from bank has to be assessed as income from house property.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-engaged-letting-rooms-lodging-house-treat-income-renting-building-bank-long-term-lease-business-income.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can an assessee not claiming deduction under section 80-IB in the initial years claim the said deduction for the remaining years during the period of eligibility, if the conditions are satisfied?</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-claiming-deduction-section-80ib-initial-years-claim-deduction-remaining-years-period-eligibility-conditions-satisfied.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-claiming-deduction-section-80ib-initial-years-claim-deduction-remaining-years-period-eligibility-conditions-satisfied.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 80(IB)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Praveen Soni vs Commissioner Of Income Tax  (Delhi HC) -  On the above issue, the Delhi High Court held that the provisions of section 80-IB nowhere stipulated a condition that the claim for deduction under this section had to be made from the first year of qualification of deduction failing which the claim will not be allowed in the remaining years of eligibility. Therefore, the deduction under section 80-IB should be allowed to the assessee for the remaining years up to the period for which his entitlement would accrue, provided the conditions mentioned under section 80-IB are fulfilled. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessee-claiming-deduction-section-80ib-initial-years-claim-deduction-remaining-years-period-eligibility-conditions-satisfied.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does income derived from sale of export incentive qualify for deduction under section 80-IB?</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/income-derived-sale-export-incentive-qualify-deduction-section-80ib.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/income-derived-sale-export-incentive-qualify-deduction-section-80ib.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 80(IB)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT v. Jaswand Sons (2010) 328 ITR 442 (P&#038;H) - On this issue, the High Court held that income derived from sale of export incentive cannot be said to be income 'derived from' the industrial undertaking and therefore, such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/income-derived-sale-export-incentive-qualify-deduction-section-80ib.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exemption u/s. 54 in respect of more than one residential flat acquired by the assessee under a joint development agreement with builder</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exemption-54-respect-residential-flat-acquired-assessee-joint-development-agreement-builder.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exemption-54-respect-residential-flat-acquired-assessee-joint-development-agreement-builder.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 54]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma - Can exemption under section 54 be claimed in respect of more than one residential flat acquired by the assessee under a joint development agreement with a builder, wherein the property owned by the assessee was developed by the builder who constructed eight residential flats in the said property, four of which were given to the assessee?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/exemption-54-respect-residential-flat-acquired-assessee-joint-development-agreement-builder.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can AO tax the actual profits as per books of accounts, if the same is higher than 10% of receipts which deemed to be the profits u/s. 44BBB in case of a foreign company engaged in turnkey projects?</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessing-officer-bring-tax-actual-profits-books-accounts-higher-10-receipts-deemed-profits-section-44bbb-case-foreign-company-engaged-turnkey-projects.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessing-officer-bring-tax-actual-profits-books-accounts-higher-10-receipts-deemed-profits-section-44bbb-case-foreign-company-engaged-turnkey-projects.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:45:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high court judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 44BBB]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://taxguru.in/?p=47105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DIT v. DSD Noell GmbH  (Delhi High Court) -  In the present case, the assessee is a German company providing engineering and technical services for various projects eligible for presumptive taxation scheme under section 44BBB. The assessee filed its return declaring a sum equal to 10% of the amount paid or payable to the assessee under the projects undertaken by it as deemed profits and gains chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" as per the provisions of section 44BBB. The Assessing Officer contended that on the basis of books of account maintained by the assessee, the profits could be more than 10% and therefore, the actual profits should be brought to tax by invoking sub-section (2) of section 44BBB.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/assessing-officer-bring-tax-actual-profits-books-accounts-higher-10-receipts-deemed-profits-section-44bbb-case-foreign-company-engaged-turnkey-projects.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

