Procter & Gamble Home Products Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Main allegation of the revenue is that of non-furnishing of audited AE and non AE segmental as well as documents regarding choice of foreign entity as tested party. We also noted that any other reason for levy of penalty is for non-furnishing of audited […]
Akarsh Residence Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per the facts noted by learned CIT(A) in the relevant paras of his order as reproduced above, it comes out that search was carried out in the case of M/s. Adarsh Developers and incriminating documents were found and seized in the course of search and those […]
ITO Vs M/s Heckyl Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Firstly, the AO has clearly mentioned at paragraph no. 5 on page no’s, 6 and 7 of his order that he had made two references to the tax authorities in Mauritius and the UK. These references had been made under section 90 of the Act and had […]
Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. DRP erred in using a LIBOR based interest rate to benchmark the international transaction of payment of interest on FCCDs denominated in Indian Rupees
DCIT Vs Vodafone India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We find that for installation / setting up / repairing / servicing / maintenance capacity augmentation are require human intervention but after completing this process mere interconnection between the operators is automatic and does not require any human intervention. The term Inter Connecting User Charges (IUC) also signifies […]
Sh. Shambhu Dayal, Ravi Dutt, Gori Shankar Rajesh Rohit L/h Late Sh. Jhabar Mal (ITAT Jaipur) The undisputed facts are that the assessee, Shri Jhabar Mal Kumawat had expired on 10.10.2015 as noted by the AO in the assessment order. Thereafter, the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 were recorded and after seeking approval […]
Merely earning surplus by assessee did not result into the conclusion, that assessee was carrying on its activities, which could be termed as business, trade, or commerce, charging a nominal fee to use coding system and to avail of advantages and benefits therein was neither reflective of business aptitude nor indicative of profit-oriented intent. Accordingly, proviso to section 2(15) did not get attracted, and hence, there was no justification for denying exemption under section 11.
Jadhav Kangralkar Builders Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) We find that there is no dispute regarding the business of assessee and earning Rs.200/- extra over and above regular income for selling 37,752 sq. ft. in Aayodhya Nagari project. From the day one i.e. from date of survey as discussed above, the assessee was contended the amount […]
Atos India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the assessment initiated in the name of a non-existing entity is justified in law? ITAT states that, even after the learned DRP taking into account the fact of merger and passing order by giving directions to the learned AO in the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the marketing expenditure incurred on account of issuance of handsets on free of cost basis is allowed as business expense or not?
