the Tribunal had held that absence of TRC cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of DTAA. It has only held that the assessee should furnish evidence for the claim of exemption.
Further, the remuneration paid to managing director in the previous year cannot be a criterion for invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act as the assessee’s turnover stood at ₹ 283 lakhs as compared to ₹ 99 lakhs in immediately previous year. This has resulted into rise of 185% in turnover.
Ramesh A. Radhakrishnan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the expression used is ‘held’ as against ‘acquired’ or ‘purchased’ as used in other Sections like section 54 / 54F which shows that legislatures were conscious while making use of this expression. The expressions like ‘owned’ / ‘acquired’ has not been used for the purpose […]
DCIT Vs. Salasar Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Satisfaction in the case is not recorded by the AO of the searched party, which is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act and hence, the assessment framed u/s 153C read with Section u/s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. FULL TEXT […]
While computing capital gain on sale of shares kept under Portfolio Management Scheme (PMS), assessee could not claim deduction of PMS fee as the same neither fell under the category of transfer fee, nor under the category of cost of acquisition/improvement.
Krishna Enterprises Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents. The goods of the petitioner under transportation along with the vehicle have been seized vide order dated 08.05.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of UP GST […]
All you wanted to know about PAN What is PAN? All India UNIQUE 10 Alphanumeric Character allotted by the Income Tax Department. PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN) does not change with, change of address or station or change of Assessing Officer, etc PAN is needed by > an Income Tax assessee, or > any person carrying […]
Jyoti Rakesh Kapoor Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has gifted her 50% share in the property in favour of her brother in law in pursuance of family arrangement between the family members for acquiring separate property for each family member. The […]
TVS Motor Company Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commr. of CGST & CE (Madras High Court) The respondent states that the impugned order is only a show cause notice (SCN). This Court is unable to agree with the said stand taken by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue, as a show cause notice cannot […]
Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee did not provide transport facility to the outsiders and was providing the same only to the students and the staff working for the society. Since transport facility was incidental to achieve the object of providing education, i.e., the object of the society, therefore, the transport […]
