Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) There are two limbs in Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the first limb is valuation to be made as per the prescribed method. In fact, the method for valuation of shares is prescribed under Rule 11UA of the […]
Payment to parent company for copyrighted software on principle to principle basis cannot be treated royalty and TDS not applicable on payment to parent company not having PE in India.
Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Indore) The basis of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as per Ld. Pr. CIT is that transfer pricing related issues were not examined by the A.O. since the transaction carried out by the assessee are covered under specific domestic transactions. The contention […]
Parnami Pump & Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Bogus Purchases Cannot Be Wholly Disallowed Without Disallowing Sales Only Gross Profit (GP) Rate Should Be Added as Undisclosed Income We find that the Assessing Officer had issued summons u/s.131 to the proprietor of the said entity from whom assessee has made purchases, but that […]
Approval given by approving authority for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without due application of mind and in mechanical manner – reassessment should be quashed.
Since there was no separate payment made for the purchase of software embedded in mobile phones, therefore, no TDS to be deducted under Section 195 for software embedded in mobile phones imported by assessee during the previous year.
The only issue in the appeal is the denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54 and 54F of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that, firstly, the assessee has earned capital gain and has invested the same in purchase of a residential plot; secondly, the assessee has made a total investment of Rs.63,03,005/- which is more than the exemption of Rs.52,90,424/- claimed by her
Line of judicial view is that the Revenue cannot be permitted to contend that there is a CBDT instruction No. 03/2010 dated 23/3/2010 to the contrary. No CBDT circular or instruction can be contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, even subsequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction upon AO who otherwise was not the AO of assessee, therefore, notice issued under section 148 was quashed and since reopening was quashed, subsequent orders passed on account of such reopening were also quashed.
Making of wrong claim due to inadvertent clerical error committed by Chartered Accountant could not be classified as furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) when assessee had voluntarily filed revised computation and AO had completed assessment on the basis of details furnished by assessee.
