Once there is no patent or any intellectual right vested in a person over a thing, no claim of royalty can be allowed to him.
The agreement of the assessee to acquire a rented property for running its office cannot be considered as an intangible asset similar to know how, patents, copy rights, trade marks, etc under section 32(1)(ii).
Valentine Maritime (Gulf) LLC v. ADIT (Int’l Taxation)- The word `connected’ is not defined anywhere in the India-UAE Tax Treaty but, contextual meaning of that term would include connection in terms of the nature of work carried out; the connection would not arise only because these are carried out at the nearby geographical location or for the same person, but there has to be something in the nature of work that must be connected.
When an explanation is offered, the onus stands shifted on to the Revenue whereby it has to be shown that the explanation offered by the assessee is false or assessee has not been able to substantiate his explanation and failed to prove that such explanation is bona fide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have not been disclosed.
Before invoking provisions of section 153A it would be necessary to comply with provisions contained under section 132(1) The purpose of section 132 for issue of warrant of authorization is to unearth, detect and to take possession of the unaccounted/ undisclosed income or property.
It was held that if technical services provided off-shore do not require any deduction of tax at source. In the . instant case, the services have been rendered off-shore though these are utilized in India and as per the; decision of the jurisdictional High Court, no TD5 was required to be made. It is true that through e-commerce, the services can be rendered in India without any geographical boundary but no facts have been put before us to establish that Sun Singapore provided such services in India When the income of the recipients not taxable in India then the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source. Hence, it is held that the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the IT Act.
In order to apply the provisions of section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee; the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.
The fact that the Agent has deducted tax under section 195 will not be a bar to proceed and pass an order under section 163 against the agent
Recently, the Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Arif Akhatar Husssain (ITA No. 541/Mum/2010) held that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is applicable to the capital gains arising on transfer of Development Rights by the taxpayer.
The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of M/s Nimbus Communications Limited vs. ACIT Circle 11(1), Mumbai for Assessment Year 2004-05, ITA No. 659 7/Mum/09 , on transfer pricing issues arising from amount overdue to the Taxpayer from its associate enterprise (“AE”). The tribunal held in favour of the Taxpayer observing that if a commercial transaction was at arms? length, no transfer pricing addition for non-charging of interest on overdue debt was warranted.
