ITAT held that payment made to non-resident without deducting the tax at source u/s. 195 of the Act, does not come under the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently, assessee need not to deduct TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and thus, question of disallowance of said payment u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act does not arise.
Michael Page International Pte Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that unless the recipient of the services, by virtue of rendition of services by the assessee, is enabled to provide the same services without recourse to the service provider, the services cannot be said to have made available the recipient of services. A mere […]
Difference between stated consideration and guideline value is less than 10% as prescribed under 3rd proviso to section 50C(1), then there cannot be any addition by substituting full value of consideration.
Since the assessee is a company as is established by the 143(1) intimation, question of assessing its income under the head ‘salary’ does not arise. Impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
This writ petition has been filed, challenging the levy of fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, for the financial year 2012-13 on the ground that the provisions of Section 234E of the Act can operate only prospectively, i.e, with effect from 01.06.2015 and not in respect of any earlier period.
Merely because entity has not responded to section 133 (6) notice the transaction cannot be doubted and be treated as non-genuine
Requirement of furnishing audit report in Form No. 10B before due date prescribed in section 44AB mandatory w.e.f. 1.4.2020 only.
CESTAT not find any error in imposition of composite penalty under Rule 173 Q read with Section 11 AC as in the instant case all the charges have been confirmed and the charges pertains to both the period prior to introduction of Section 11 AC and thereafter. Therefore, penalty under both the provision could have been rightly imposed.
Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Rajasthan, hereby assign the territorial jurisdiction under the said Act as mentioned in column no. 2 of the Table given below to the officers specified in column no. 3 of the said Table for the purpose of audit of a registered person for such period and at such frequency as assigned to them under Section 65 of the said Act.
It is evident that there was no requirement of NOC from the Drug Controller in respect of export consignment vide Shipping Bill No. 7099329 dt. 16.04.20 16 filed by the appellant for export of drugs to Liberia.
