Agility Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT As the facts in issue for the year under appeal are identical with facts of the AY 2004 -05 & 2005 -06, respectfully following the decisions of the tribunal mentioned here in above in the appellants own case for the AY 2004 -05 & 2005 -06, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee and hold that the additions on account adjustment in arm’s length price to the tune of Rs.110700000.00 is uncalled for and accordingly the adjustment is rejected on the facts of the case discussed here in above .
With regard to the first issue the AO was under the wrong impression in treating the reimbursement of ‘scheme expenses’ as provision for expenses whereas the fact remains that the expenses were crystallized and it was paid immediately after the end of the financial year and similar expenses were allowed as eligible for deduction in the subsequent year. With regard to applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act also, the learned CIT(A) gave cogent reasons in holding that provisions relating to TDS are not applicable and on similar issue the matter was decided in favour of the assessee in respect of A.Y. 2007-08.
DCIT v. Enpro Finance Ltd Clause-b of sub section (1) of section 54G does not use its specific phrase ‘for the purpose of its business of under taking’ except that the business should be in non-urban area. Therefore, it can be interpreted that assessee should carry on any business in non urban area. If the amounts are utilized for acquisition of assets for the purpose of its business, this should qualify for the purpose of exemption under section 54G as there is no requirement that the land and building should be used for the purpose of the business of industrial undertaking.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. V. DDIT The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the action of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in confirming the view expressed by the Assessing Officer in holding that the payment of USD 21,270 payable to CEVA DSP Limited, Israel, for purchase of software was in the nature of royalty and the assessee was required to deduct tax at source and pay the same to the Government.
The assessment is framed u/s. 153A of the IT Act, which is specifically meant for computation of undisclosed income, which is found during the course of search. The assessee in order to circumvent the provisions of law have tried to reduce the amount in question out of total undisclosed income determined in the course of search by claiming a bad debt which was never claimed in the regular books of account or in the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act.
While the gift is given by a person to another person who is personally related to him, the remission of trading liability takes place in business relationships. Normally, the remission of trading liability takes place only due to adverse business situation faced by a business concern.
Even though assessee is following the cash system of accounting, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax. v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 relied on by the Counsel before the Bench that mere advance received does not partake the character of income, it is necessary to examine whether the advances are in the nature of revenue receipt or not. Not only that the amounts accrued to the applicant out of the advance received in the assessment year 2005-06 were already transferred to professional income and were assessed as such.
The assessee is an approved Developer of SEZ. The only activity carried on by the assessee is developing a sector specific SEZ. It has leased out the developed plots to the entrepreneurs who had obtained the letter of approval from the competent authority. Sec.80-IAB provides that setting up of a SEZ is the business of developing SEZ. Therefore, the assessee is not expected to perform any other activity than developing of a SEZ to qualify for deduction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the lower authorities are not justified in refusing deduction under sec.80-IAB. The claim of deduction made by the assessee under sec.80-IAB is in accordance with law. The assessing authority is directed to give the deduction.
Explore the ITAT Bangalore judgment on global e-business operations vs. DDCIT. Learn about tax implications and obligations for reimbursement payments.
The discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer while rejecting the book results have not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has observed that although the quantity of cotton seed, mustard and groundnut crushed during the previous year were shown separately but the yield of oil and oil cakes have been given in consolidated form at 13.02 per cent and 83.91 per cent respectively. Further, the sales of oil and oil cakes have been shown in the manufacturing account in consolidated form although there was a wide variation in the market price of these products.
