110. On a close reading of the provisions we notice that sub section (1) of section 80-IB provides for the deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from eligible business referred to in sub-sections (3) to (11) and (11A).the deduction
7.1 On bare reading of above provision, it is clear that any sum paid to discharge “any obligation” of the assessee would be a perquisite under the above clause. However, the important words in the provisions are, “in respect of any obligation” and “would have been payable by the assessee”. It is quite obvious that employer had obligation only to pay correct tax on assessee’s income
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view inferences drawn by the authorities below are not sustainable in law. The grounds on which the A.O. has added the amount of gift as assessee’s income are summarized by us in para 12. We do not agree that the persons showing income of Rs.80,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum
5.11 Now coming to the merits of the case. For this purposes, we are required to consider the scheme of taxation of income from house property. Section 22 says that the measure of income from house property is its annual value. The annual value is to be decided in accordance with section 23. Sub-section (1) of section 23, by virtue of the amendment with effect from the assessment year 1976-77
From the above provision, it is clear that the authorities mentioned in the definition of AO in section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be assigned the jurisdiction to any authorities mentioned in the definition by the CBDT under the provisions of section 120 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to act as an Assessing Officer. Only in that circumstances that Assistant Commissioner or Dy. Director of Income-tax, other authorities mentioned in the definition u/s 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can act as fee Assessing Officer) In this case, the Dy. Director of Income-tax (Investigation II
This appeal came before me as Third Member to express my opinion on the following question:- “Whether in view of the facts and circumstances, the issue relatable to computation of deduction under section 801B, the order of the Id. CIT(A) could be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer could be restored or matter can be set aside and remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration?
The assessee having applied for extension and having completed all the formalities; and in response the Reserve Bank of India having taken the remittances on record, the non-issue of a formal letter for approval, in our view, cannot be held against the assessee for none of its faults. The assessee having applied for extension and the same having been impliedly granted in substance, the benefit of section 10A has got to be allowed to the assessee on the ground that the extension is deemed to have been granted.
Lucent Technologies International Inc. 1(“the assessee”) is a company incorporated in the USA. It is a tax resident of USA. It is a leading supplier of hardware and software used for GSM cellular radio telephone system. The assessee had supplied telecommunications hardware and software to its customers in India through its subsidiary Lucent Technologies India Limited (“LTIL”) (formerly known as AT&T India Private Limited).
Background The Mumbai Tribunal has recently held in the case of Schenectady Specialities Asia Pvt. Ltd. that the difference between the sales tax collected but not deposited by the assessee with the Government under a sales tax deferral scheme, and the amount settled by the assessee under the premature payment option, is to be treated […]
7. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant orders of the revenue authorities, the orders of the Tribunal as in quantum appeals, write-ups and the details relating to the investigations undertaken by the AO during the set aside proceedings referred to in the said orders. Factually, the assessee is a Cable Work Contractor and executed various contracts in the names of various concerns
