Penalty under section 271(1)(c)-Concealment-Disallowance of expenses due to delay in payment of TDS-The disallowance of expenditure does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Under section 9(1)(vi)-Income from supply of software to clients in India-Where assessee was engaged in sale of copyright software then income from such sale cannot be treated as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) particularly where assessee did not have any PE in India.
In our view decision in the case of Green Emirate Shipping & Travels (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As held in the aforesaid easel expression liable to tax’ in that contracting state as used in Article 4(l)of Indo-UAE-DTAA does not necessarily imply that the person should actually be liable to tax in that contracting state land that it is enough if other contracting state has right to tax such person, whether or not such a right is exercised
In our considered view, the AO was within his realm to invoke the provisions of s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the premise that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source while making the interest payments. The assessee’s stand that the payees have approached the AOs concerned for issuance of No TDS/lower TDS etc., authorization which they have failed to obtain etc., doesn’t hold water. Further contention of the assessee that TDS obligation was not was required, considering the computation of income shown in each case where F No.13 application was made to the AO concerned for authorization, in our considered view, to put it gently, the assessee had over-stepped in his perception which he was not obliged to do so under any provisions of I.T.Act.
In this bunch of four appeals, the assessee has challenged the impugned common order of the Learned CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 dated 24.11.2006 and all these four appeals are arising out of the orders passed by the I.T.O.(TDS) – 3(1), Mumbai (in short the A.O.) treating the assessee in deemed default for not deducting the tax at source u/s. 194C and 194J of the Act.
Where it was clear from the original assessment orders as well as order made by the appellate authority that the Assessing Officer was well aware about the primary facts, viz., the claim made by the assessee, the circumstances under which the claim was made, and the provisions of law which could be applied while granting the benefits, and the Assessing Officer consciously considered the facts and arrived at a decision, the assessment cannot be reopened merely because subsequently the Assessing Officer changes his opinion or some other officer takes a different view.
We have heard both the parties. A forward contract is an agreement between a buyer and a seller obligating the seller to deliver a specified asset of specified quality and quantity to the buyer on a specified date at a specified place and the buyer in turn Is obligated to pay the seller a pre-negotiated price in exchange of the delivery. In the Instant case, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. In respect of export of readymade ga
The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on three grounds. Firstly, the assessee has argued that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing the particulars of income but the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty is legally invalid. Reliance has placed on several judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as mentioned in Para 4 earlier. We are unable to accept the arg
These seven appeals by different assessee are arising out of order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Surat in appeal Nos. CAS-IV/100-106/ 2008-09 dated 12-10-2009. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Circle-7and ITO Ward-7(2) Surat vide their different orders dated 18-12-2008, 16-12-2008 &26-12-2008 respectively for the assessment year 2006-07.
8. We find that there is no dispute about applicability of India Mauritius tax treaty on the facts of the present case, as also about the fundamental position that the provisions of the said treaty being beneficial to the assessee, the same will override the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act. It is also not in dispute that the profits earned by the assessee from these contracts are business profits in nature and can only be brought to tax in India in the event of Mauritian company having been held to have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The question that we must, therefore, address ourselves to
