SPX India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) Tax was required to be deducted at source on share of ISO audit expenses paid to foreign parent company, as element of income was embedded in receipt of auditor. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT Assessee is in appeal before us against the order of ld. CIT […]
Bureau Veritas-Indian Division Vs ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) Technical expenses allocated by head office to assessee-Indian division was in nature of reimbursement of technical expenses to head office and not on account of any specific technical services having been ‘made available’ and, therefore, such amount could not be brought to tax in hands of assessee under […]
ITO Vs Vishinda Diamonds (ITAT Mumbai) Sister concern made purchases of rough diamonds on behalf of assessee. Sister concern made payment of core service charges to vendor after deducting tax at rate of 15 per cent as per article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. Assessee reimbursed expenses to sister concern. HELD, There was no element […]
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee made payment for link charges to telecom service providers in the USA and cross-charged the portion of the cost incurred by it in connection with the India half link to CIS, which was accordingly reimbursed by CIS to assessee. The assessee has merely procured […]
Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the deduction u/s 35(2AB) towards research and development expenditure claimed by assessee is justified in law? In present case, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) being 200% of amount incurred towards scientific research. The perusal of approvals from DSIR in […]
Month is to be interpreted as period of 30 days and not British calendar for levying additional interest u/s 201(1A) for late payment of TDS?
AMP expenditure of assessee did not have a direct bearing on the promotion of brands of its AEs as the issue stood decided in favour of assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years i.e., A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Income from cloud hosting services had erroneously held as royalty within the meaning of explanation (2) to section 9(1)(vi) as well as Article 12(3)(b) of the Indo-USA DTAA by AO and DRP as the Data Centre and Infrastructure therein was used to provide services belonged to assessee and customer did not have physical control or possession over the servers and right to operate and manage this infrastructure/servers vested solely with assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether the late filing fees for TDS return u/s 234E is mandatory in nature or it can be condone if there is reasonable cause?
whether the AO is correct in chargeing capital gain in the hands of assessee irrespective of the fact that the full consideration not received by the assessee?
