A.O. noted that the deduction under section 80IC is to be allowed on the profits derived from eligible business. The interest earned on the FDRs cannot be said that interest income earned from manufacturing activities of the assessee. It can only be said that interest income on FDRs is attributable to business activities but cannot be said that it derived from manufacturing activity of the assessee.
Commission earned by non-resident for services rendered abroad could not be construed as incomes accrued or arisen in India and accordingly disallowance made by AO by invoking section 40(a)(i) was set aside.
M/s Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Agra) In the case at hand, the challenge of the assessee is that since in the reasons recorded, the AO has not spelt out as to what he did with the information received by him from the Investigation Wing, the reasons are hit by the vice of non-application […]
ITAT held that There is no time-limit prescribed for bringing the consideration of export into India under section 10AA. Admittedly, the consideration had been received in India, albeit subsequent to filing of the return by the assessee. However, merely because the consideration had been received after 6 months from the close of the financial year the deduction, cannot be denied to the assessee on the sum. Therefore, AO was directed to grant deduction to the assessee under section 10AA of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Power Plant Engineers Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is apparent that the persons deputed by the recipient of the income were not routine employees, but were highly qualified and technical employees who were providing the head and brain’ to the assessee company. It cannot be said to be the reimbursement of salary expenditure when […]
Assessee held own funds of Rs. 23,580 lakhs, whereas investment in subsidiaries stood at Rs. 1,576 lakhs. Presumption in such case would be that assessee had used only its own funds for making investments. Further, there was commercial expediency in making said investments, hence no disallowance was called for.
DCIT Vs Jhajjar Central Coop Bank Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the provision pertained to audit fee payable to the statutory auditor for the ensuing year. It was further submitted that the statutory audit has to be carried out by a CA Firm recommended by NABARD and the audit fee is also […]
These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-12, Mumbai dated 30/05/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the Act). In the A.Y. 2010-11, Revenue is in appeal before us with respect to disallowance of similar expenses.
Elektrobit Automotive GmbH AM Vs Deputy DIT (ITAT Delhi) It was held that license agreement as entered by the assessee itself points out the word royalty. Moreover, considering the facts of case, that license terms obliges the licensee to furnish to assessee monthly statement of supplied products to customers using his software and consequent raising […]
DCIT Vs Dia Vikas Capital Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) On going through the above details from the assessee’s ledger account, it is seen that sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- is a provision made on 31.12.2008 against the consultancy fees. Similarly there is another item of Rs. 84,50,000/- which is again a provision for consultancy fee. This […]
