NIIT Foundation Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) Online Coaching considered as Education u/s 2(15) hence eligible for Exemption under section 11/12 The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is not in the nature of ‘education’ within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the […]
Whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that consideration received on assignment of know-how is chargeable to tax as Capital Gains?
AO can scrutinize the valuation report and he can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the assessee.
ITAT Kolkata ruling on Amrabathi Investra (P) Ltd. Vs ITO case. Assessment reopened u/s 147. Read full judgment details and outcome.
Dulari Devi Hetamsaria (L/H of Shyam Sundar Hetamsaria) Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Mumbai, in the case of M/s John Flower ( India) Pvt. Ltd, in ITA No.7545/Mum/2014, for A.Y. 2010-11, order dated 25.01.2017 held that if the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee is less […]
The issue under consideration is whether the TPO is correct in considering subvention fee in the BPO segment instead of distribution segment?
The issue under consideration is whether the sale of shares by a Cyprus company to the assessee of an Indian company, who was holding a technology Park [immovable property] as only asset, is taxable in India in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Cyprus?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition under section 68 is done by AO is justified in law whenm addition was based on third party statements which were retracted by them and Assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine them and when Addition are based merely on Surmises?
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the payment for provision of transponder capacity is in the nature of Royalty?
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding initiated after 4.5 years from date of original assessment order is justified in lawand also when order was silent about the levy of penalty under section 271B?
