The CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payments towards electricity, water supply, security, lift maintenance etc., falling within the meaning of section 194C whereby these charges are paid for carrying out the work for maintenance of the common area that are available along with the lease premises.
Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs Additional / Joint/ Deputy / Assistant CIT (Calcutta High Court) Facts- The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the notice dated 23rd March, 2022 which is an opportunity granted to the assessee to show cause as to why the proposal made in the notice by way of giving effect […]
ITO (Exemption) Vs Innovative Welfare and Educational Society (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The Assessee had filed its ROI on dated 31.03.2006 by declaring Nil income which was processed and resulting into passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on dated 21-09-2007. Later on it came to the knowledge of the AO that the […]
TPO /DRP in their order has expressed an inability to compute the ALP using CUP due to a lack of information in the public domain. Given the difficulty / impossibility in computing ALP using CUP and considering the close nexus between the manufacturing activity and payment of management / license fees, the method to be adopted for benchmarking the above international transactions by the assessee ought to be TNMM.
We observed that the exemption was claimed U/s 54F of the Act on this account is Rs. 6,33,190/-. It is further noticed that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the purchase of new house in the name of wife of the assessee though the claim was denied by the AO.
The assessee deposited this amount of Rs.2.20 crores in his bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank and the inference in which the normal man will draw is that the amount cannot be from any other source except from the transaction of sale of land because it is common in the transactions of immovable properties that there is under hand transactions.
ITAT Held that since no specific charge was framed either in the show-cause notice or in the body of penalty order and there was failure on the part of Ld. AO to frame specific charge against the assessee, the penalty would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. By deleting the impugned penalty, we allow the appeal.
The tax Auditor has also certified the deduction claimed as per Sl.No.33 of the Form No.3CD therefore, only for want of not filing Form NO.10CCB within the due date the claim of deduction should not be disallowed
ITAT held that the amount received by the assessee from sale of software and provision of software related services cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(3) of the India – Singapore DTAA.
It is clear that, the transactions in respect of trading in derivatives referred to in Clause (ac) of Section 2 of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 carried in a recognized stock exchange are excluded from the definition of ‘speculation transaction’ described under Section 43 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
