Birla Corporation Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Jabalpur) Installation, commissioning or assembling services being part of composite supply contract covered by specific article on PE of DTAA and not general article on FTS. Facts of the case: Birla Corporation Ltd. (taxpayer), an Indian company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling cement. During the […]
First of all, we have to examine the documents produced by the assessee during the course of original assessment framed u/s. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20.11.2009. We find from the assessment order that the assessee produced complete details of purchases i.e. purchase statement.
As per provisions of section 132B of the Act the assets seized u/s 132 or requisitioned u/s 132A may be adjusted towards the amount of any “existing liability”. The Explanation 2 attach to section 132B of the Act clarifies that for removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the “existing liability”
condition precedent for proceeding under section 147/148 of the Act was that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court further held, The notice under section 147/148 issued to the petitioner was not vitiated merely for the reason that notice under section 143(2) had not been issued to it.
In the present case, we are dealing with a situation in which payment has been made to a non-resident taxpayer but the said non-resident taxpayer has taken into account the receipts in question in his business income and has already filed his income tax return under section 139(1)
Issue -During the course of search certain valuables including jewellery was found and the assessee has filed detailed explanation regarding the source of acquisition of jewellery. The assessee has explained that out of the jewellery found, some part belongs to the wife of the assessee
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in his notice u/s 263 dated 18.3.2014 stated that prima facie deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee is not justifiable on the following grounds :- 1. Assessee is assembling and trading LCDs and it is not carrying on manufacturing of goods.
Hon’ble Chennai ITAT has in the case of SAE India v/s DIT(E) has held that if the objects and activities of the trust are genuine than registration cannot be cancelled merely because receipts are exceeding threshold limit as provided under second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.
In this case the Assessee was a Public Sector undertaking and had omitted to add back Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts. During the Assessment the mistake was noticed and the claim was conceded and disallowance of provision was made.
Share Application Money or deposit in the current account cannot be included in the definition of deposit so as to trigger provisions of sec 269SS of the Income Tax Act,1961. Brief facts of the case were that the assessee company was in the business of construct ion of the hotel.
