whether the assessee, who made a self assessment of tax and paid tax, far in excess of that determined under the regular assessment; is entitled to interest on the refund.
Expression Computer Software is wide enough to embrace diverse activities and to eliminate any doubt the reference can be made to Customized Electronic Data as mentioned in Second Explanation to Section 10B (2) of the Act. Further, CBDT issued notification and the notification relied on in the present case uses the expressions (iii) content development or animation (iv) data processing …. (vii) human resources services” and (ix) legal data-bases
Where assessee was earning exempt income and no dis allowance was made by it and AO was of view that assessee failed to prove that own funds were utilized for investment, therefore, AO proceeded to compute dis allowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, however, it ignored the interest income earned by assessee, AO was not justified since for the purpose of dis allowance net interest expenses were to be taken.
Mere rejection of the application for securing NBFC status would not render the assessee business less and the income derived by the assessee would not lose business character.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest under section 234B is not leviable in respect of payments to the non-resident assessee being subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
There is no mention of Flavoured Chewing Tobacco in the definition of Pan Masala as per Appendix B. The ingredients mentioned in the definition of Pan Masala are used for human consumption in one form or the other and therefore come within the definition of food as per Section 2(v) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Out of these four appeals two appeals are filed by the assessee while the other two appeals are filed by the Revenue for against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)–4, Mumbai dated 13-2-2017 and 6-2-2017 for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questions the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The Bombay High Court while allowing a reference application in favour of the Revenue, held that voluntary disclosure in all cases cannot absolve the assessee from penal liabilities under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
It was held that the payment made for annual maintenance contracts would not fall under the category of fee for technical services within the meaning of provisions of section 194J of the Act.
