A proprietorship firm and the partnership firm even though the said proprietor was one of the partner in the partnership firm, both could not be a related person under section 2(41) of the Companies Act,1956.
Assessee was denied travel permission as it was a case related to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) on 115 crores money laundering Case and assessee was seeking permission to travel abroad was allegedly to undergo, “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy which was widely available in India, therefore, there was no ground to consider the prayer for travel abroad of assessee.
Revenue had placed no material on record to show that the loose papers were in the hand-writing of assessee and there was no corroborative material on record to prove that the expenditure recorded in the said loose papers was incurred by assessee. Therefore, no addition could be made on account of undisclosed expenses.
Receipts from providing information technology related support services could not be considered as royalty and/fees for technical services as while running the services, assessee had not made available any technical knowledge, experience, skill in terms of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA and as such, receipts in question were not FTS liable to tax in India.
AO without bringing any material or reasons before making any addition, simply added back the opening balances of the trade payables without making any verification from the parties and he had failed to discharge the preliminary onus and had made the addition in summary manners, therefore, CIT(A) had committed no error in deleting the addition made u/s 41.
Income received by assessee-UK telecom company from an Indian telecom company for rendering roaming services to customers abroad was not ‘royalty’ as assessee-UK had not provided any right, as mentioned in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi), or any kind of use of any process or equipment to VIL
Land sold by assessee was agricultural Land and did not qualify as capital asset in terms of Section 2(14)(iii) as it was subsequent to purchase of land, its use was changed to non-agriculture purpose, therefore, the capital gain earned on the piece of land as not being liable to tax.
Addition on account of unexplained investments under section 69 could not be made as whatever deposits were made were either out of the past savings or from the loans taken from relatives.
Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there was no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit could not be denied, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which was not existence in law.
Classification of non-textured fabrics must be based on nature and material coated as end use of a product could not be a criteria for classification, the other parameters such as the nature of cloth, nature of coating etc were required to be ascertained to classify the fabrics.
