Contention of the assessee that the non-compete fee is the business expenditure of the assessee has been upheld. The assessee has always contended that it is its business expenditure and therefore, it was required to deduct the tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. For failure to deduct the tax inspite of being liable to do so, the penalty u/s 271 C is clearly leviable.
Since the assessee has not shown any profit nor paid any remuneration to any of the members, the provisions of section 40(ba) will not be attracted.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that the hospital is not liable to pay Sales Tax under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act in respect of import of medical equipments for its personal consumption.
It was the explanation of assessee that the legal opinion given by the Counsel that there is no capital gain on the STT paid transactions, was not accepted by AO stating that she is a promoter of a company and has a battery of legal advisors and her husband also has legal knowledge.
ACIT Vs. Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Company can claim Depreciation in respect of Equipment Installed at Residential Premises of its Managing Director, the same should be added as perquisite in the hands of the said Director but cannot be disallowed in the hands of the assessee company
Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently held that interest income earned from deposits of share capital as fixed deposits in bank should be considered as capital receipt which is not taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The moot issue involved in these appeals, inter alia, is as to whether an undertaking or an enterprise, established after 7th January, 2003, carrying out substantial expansion within specified window period, i.e. between 7.1.2003 and 1.4.2012, would be entitled to deduction on profits @ 100%, under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. Also, if so, then for what period.
Assessee sold 3,10,000 shares and claimed resulting gains as exempt under section 10(38). AO denied the exemption on the ground that as the shares were not held by the assessee for more than 12 months period, therefore, same could not be considered as long-term capital assets.
While upholding the proceedings against Advocate Rohit Tandon, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the Delhi High Courts’ order denying bail for possession and conversion of Demonetized Currency.
ACIT Vs. M/s. Jeannie Jamshed Madan (ITAT Mumbai) The fact that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in the Estate of late Shri M.S. Kotwal who is partner in the partnership firm of M/s. Mira Salt Works is not in dispute. The reason for bringing to tax the amount received by the assessee is, […]
