Sponsored
    Follow Us:

All ITAT

No Tax in India on Interest paid by Indian branch to its foreign head office

September 2, 2012 336 Views 0 comment Print

Issues involved in this appeal of the revenue are squarely covered by the recent decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. v. Dy. DIT [2012] 136 ITD 66 wherein it has been held that interest paid by the Indian Branch of the assessee bank to its overseas head office is not chargeable to tax in India.

Section 54 – Two flats on different floors cannot constitute one house

September 1, 2012 1913 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, the assessee was allotted two flats on two different stories which he claimed as eligible for exemption u/s 54. Admittedly there is no unity of construction between such flats. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra) has categorically held that the exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of one house and not more than one.

Section 10A deduction can be claimed by filing revised return u/s. 139(5)

September 1, 2012 2005 Views 0 comment Print

Reason behind disallowance of claim made by the assessee was that since the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 10A in the return filed under section 139(1), the proviso to section 10A debarred him from making any such claim in revised return. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the proviso under section 10A.

Deduction u/s.35(2AB) on expenditure in respect of patent filing in foreign countries & on foreign consultancy

September 1, 2012 5717 Views 0 comment Print

The consultancy charges had been paid by the assessee in providing technical services regarding the patents, obtaining patent information from innovator companies and obtaining innovator samples for research and development purposes. The payments have been accepted towards research and not towards registering the patents.

No requirement in Income-tax Act that only self cultivated land will be treated as agricultural land

August 31, 2012 2988 Views 0 comment Print

Observation of the Assessing Officer that since the land was not cultivated by the assessee himself and was carried on by the brother, therefore, it cannot be treated as agricultural land. We are not absolutely convinced by this argument/observation because there is no requirement in any Act more especially the Income Tax Act that only the self cultivated land will be treated as agricultural land.

Taxation of Income Received for services contract spread over various years

August 31, 2012 1351 Views 0 comment Print

Admittedly, the assessee has not served for the period of five years. The assessee has not rendered enough services to warrant emoluments of Rs. 1,21,83,494. It is assessee’s submission that during the year under consideration he has not created a debt or a right to receive the payment equivalent to Rs. 1,21,83,494. Hence, it cannot be said that the income equivalent to total emolument of Rs. 1,21,83,494 has accrued to the assessee.

Advance against property cannot be taxed as capital gain if possession not given

August 31, 2012 5300 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, it was noticed that the agreement clearly stated that the owner would continue to be in possession of the scheduled property till such time the developer completes the construction of the said complex and delivers their areas infra. In the instant case, nothing was brought on record to substantiate that the possession of the land was delivered to the developer or the land was not in assessee’s possession.

Income from sale of Agricultural Land to Real Estate Company is Business Income

August 31, 2012 5845 Views 0 comment Print

Main object clause suggests that the assessee’s main business is to deal in real estate. After forming the company, the assessee started buying of land. The assessee has taken a plea before us that it has earned income by leasing these agricultural lands to other parties to carryon agricultural operations and the land was subjected to agricultural operations by other persons.

S. 14A not be invocable to disallow set off of carried forward losses in case of co-operative society

August 31, 2012 1132 Views 0 comment Print

The Assessing Officer has observed that the bank has claimed the set off of carried forward losses of earlier years of Rs. 2,39,37,185/-. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer, provisions of section 14A are applicable. The Assessing Officer has observed that up to A.Y. 2006-07, income of cooperative bank was wholly exempt u/s.80P and hence, loss was incurred because of expenditure for earning the wholly exempt income and hence, no benefit of set off can be given. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance of entire loss of Rs. 2,39,37,185/-.

Trust having ‘medical relief’ object eligble for exemption even if they incidentally carry on a commercial activity

August 29, 2012 8268 Views 0 comment Print

After examination of the activities of the assessee samiti and after considering CBDT Circular No. 11/2008, dated 19-12-2008, it is found that the admitted facts of the case under consideration are that the assessee-trust is carrying on the activities in respect of medical relief. It is found that Samiti/institution/entities whose object is ‘education’ or ‘medical relief’ would continue to be eligble for exemption as charitable institutions even if they incidentally carry on a commercial activity.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031