As the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, the incomes arising outside Indian Territories cannot be brought to tax.
ITAT held that payment made to non-resident without deducting the tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act does not arise.
Calcutta High Court held that rendering of advisory service doesn’t amount to Fees for Technical Services/ Fees for Included Services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Michael Page International Pte Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that unless the recipient of the services, by virtue of rendition of services by the assessee, is enabled to provide the same services without recourse to the service provider, the services cannot be said to have made available the recipient of services. A mere […]
Bombay High Court held that State Government is under an obligation to repay the value of stamps in money in case the stamps are not used and given to Collector for cancellation.
Difference between stated consideration and guideline value is less than 10% as prescribed under 3rd proviso to section 50C(1), then there cannot be any addition by substituting full value of consideration.
Since the assessee is a company as is established by the 143(1) intimation, question of assessing its income under the head ‘salary’ does not arise. Impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Allahabad High Court held that excessive power consumption, prima facie, establishes the intention to suppress the production and the turnover. Accordingly, the books of account can be rejected on the basis of high consumption of electricity.
Rajasthan High Court held that reassessment resorted only on account of ‘Change of opinion’ of AO and without there being any fresh tangible evidence for reopening the assessment proceedings is liable to be struck down.
Bombay High Court held that re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified as the assessee provided complete disclosure of all the primary material facts during the scrutiny assessment.
