M/s. Google India Private Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT Bangalore); TDS on royalty payments under section 195(2): Applicability of DTAA cannot be determined suo-moto by AO without there being any application
Income declared cannot be called retraced if same was included in 2nd revised return but not in Original and First Revise Return further Sec. 271AAA(2) not mandates offering of undisclosed income in return of income.
The only issue in the present appeal is whether the respondent- assessee co-operative society is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The respondent- assessee is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. According to the respondent- assessee, the primary activity of the assessee is only to provide credit facilities to its members and therefore it is not a co-operative bank.
Sri Shashi Parvatha Reddy Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderbad) Coming to the second category of shares i.e. the original and the bonus shares transferred to the assessee by the overseas investors without any cost attached to them, we find that the original shares were initially purchased or acquired by the overseas investors by way of inward […]
Outsource Partners International (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) It was not a case where no exempted income is earned and AO applied rule 8D for as rule 8D of Income Tax Rules takes care of all aspects of interest bearing funds and interest free funds and expenditure incurred in management of portfolios, etc., once […]
The captioned two appeals by the assessee relating to Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 involve a common issue, therefore, they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
These Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the assessee seeking rectification of mistake apparent on the record in the order dated 06/09/2013 passed by the Tribunal while disposing of bunch of appeals filed by the department.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 7-11-2014 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXVIII, Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12. In this appeal, the assessee has also filed a stay petition seeking stay of the outstanding demand.
What was common to both the provisos to section 40(a)(ia) and section 210(1) was that as long as the payee/resident had filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it was embedded and had also paid tax on such income, the assessee would not be treated as a person in default.
Penalty U/s. 271(c) Addition for difference on account of method of valuation of Closing Stock without any intention to to conceal income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not justified
