When the nature of transaction is such that the arm’s length price can be determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods and it need not to be determined by applying 2 or more methods, in such a situation even the price determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods will become the arithmetical mean price.
Settlement Commission has jurisdiction over assessee only when it decides to proceed with the application and admits application under section 245D(1). In respect of demand raised in the assessment made before the admission of application for settlement under section 245D(1), the Assessing Officer is entitled to levy the interest under section 220(2) till the date of admission under section 245D(1).
We have-considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. So far as facts are concerned, the undisputed facts are that assessees inherited in the co-ownership a Bunglow No.2, Faizabad Road, Opposite to IT College, Lucknow. This was sold by these assessees vide sale deed dated 20.11.2003. Apparent consideration is declared at Rs. 1,20,00,000/ – whereas valuation as per SVA is Rs.2,48,19,410/ -. The assessees objected to the proposal of the
The transportation of passengers, mails or cargo etc. by the assessee in the international traffic by the aircraft as owner/ charterer/ lessee would fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Indo-US Tax Treaty and therefore, profits attributed to the same cannot be taxed in India; further, the profits from inland transportation directly connected with such transportation would also not be taxable in India.
Cuttack bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of R.R. Caryying Corpn. v. ACIT [2009] 126 TTJ 240 (Cuttack) held that only the embedded portion of the profits is to be considered as taxable and not the entire amount in the case of discrepancies between the sales or receipt amount as per books of accounts and the amount shown in TDS certificate, for taxability purpose.
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (ITA no. 6133/Mum/2002, ITA No. 7589/Mum/2003) held that the withdrawal of circular no. Circular no. 23 dated 23 July 1969 and Circular no. 786 dated 7 February 2000 by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is effective from 22 October 2009 as made applicable vide Circular no. 7 dated 22 October 2009.
Assessee having failed to prove the identity of the non-resident donors who are said to have gifted substantial amounts to him from their NRE accounts by producing them personally or copies of their passports and also failed to prove the creditworthiness of the said donors, the alleged gifts cannot be treated as genuine, more so since the assessee had no direct relationship with the donors, there was no occasion for making the gifts, and there was no contact between the parties for almost ten years before the time of said gifts.
This has been made clear in the proviso to s. 220(2) as per which where as a result of order under ss. 154, 155 and 245D etc. amount on which interest is payable is reduced the interest would be reduced accordingly. Therefore the interest under s. 220(2) will be legally leviable from the date of default in payment of demand by the assessee till the date of admission of the application by the assessee by Settlement Commission under s. 245D(1).
Where a hospital engaged consulting doctors and provided them with consulting chambers with secretaries assistance and the fees collected from out-patients and paid to the consultants each day after deducting certain amount towards rent and secretarial assistance, it was not a case of payment of professional fee and neither s. 192 nor s. 194J was attracted and the hospital cannot be treated as assessee in default for not deducting tax from such payments.
Thus, the view taken by AO cannot be said to be erroneous which will render the assessment order as erroneous. Neither the AO has drawn incorrect assumption of facts nor AO has rendered incorrect application of law when he accepted the claim of the assessee that advertisement and publicity expenses were allowable as business expenditure
