The assessee may not have been successful in getting customers or earning the business income, but if the assessee has done requisite preparations and if the assessee can be said to be in a position to cater to its customers
Infosys & Wipro are no doubt large and distinct companies where the area of development of subject services is different and as such the profit earned there from cannot be a bench-marked or equated with the assessee.
It is open to a company to buy back its own shares by following the procedure prescribed under section 77A/Section 68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956, Act.
The brokerage paid to the third party has nothing to do with the rental income paid by the tenant for enjoying the property to the owner therefore brokerage cannot be said to be a charge that has been created in the property for enjoying the rights and at best it is only an application of income received/receivable from rent
Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found
During the financial year 2001-02 the assessee had installed wind energy project at a cost of Rs.1189.87 lakhs. The assessee accordingly applied for the said capital subsidy which was granted to the assessee during the relevant financial year 2007-08 at Rs.20 lakhs.
If the installation project last for less than 183 day in a fiscal year by a Singapore Company having no Permanent Establishment in India, then business profits of Such Company earned In India from Such project are taxable only in Singapore under article 7(1) of DTAA and Not taxable in India.
Pr. CIT vs. M Tech India P. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software.
Delhi High Court held in case of Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO upheld the order of Delhi ITAT and held that under Section 79 of the Act the set off and carry forward of loss, which is otherwise available under the provisions of Chapter VI,
The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.
