As margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental Valuer was less than 10 percent and the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the lower authorities on this count cannot be sustained
Shri Parmod Kumar Sahai Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) No reopening permissible on basis of invalid enquiry made under section 133 without approval of competent authority when no proceedings were pending We have perused second paragraph of the assessment order which refers to the inquiry made by the Assessing Officer before issue of notice u/s 148 […]
Acuity Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the subject premise in respect of which the assessee has claimed the rental expenses has been taken on lease by the assessee. Though, in the leave and license agreement, it is mentioned that it has been taken on lease for the use of residence of directors/employees, […]
Section 206AA does not override provisions of section 90(2) and in case of payment made to non-resident, assessee correctly applied rate of tax prescribed under concerned DTAAs and not as per section 206AA because provisions of the DTAAs were more beneficial and DTAA acquired primacy in such case.
Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the assessee has offered Explanation as why the transaction of loss of security was claimed as business loss. This Explanation has not found to be false by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee substantiated the Explanation by way of filing relevant documents […]
Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation-2 to section 263 inserted by Finance […]
Commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders could not be treated as income taxable in India when parameters of DTAAs were applied to transactions in question. Also non-resident agents did not have PE or business connection in India. Therefore, impugned payment could not be held as taxable in the hands of non-resident agents in India and, therefore, liability to withhold tax under section 195 did not arise.
Assessee-pharmaceutical company was entitled to claim sales promotion expenses incurred on distribution of articles to the stockists, distributors, doctors etc and the same was not hit by the Explanation to Sec. 37(1) in view of circular issued by MCI and circular of CBDT vide Circular No. 5 of 2012.
If a company is having huge asset base, brand value, goodwill and presence in global market with significant R & D, then it cannot be compared with a company which is purely captive service provider in ITeS/BPO, having low risk and insignificant assets.
Assessee had disclosed additional income in return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A voluntarily, hence, there could not be any penalty under Expln. 5A to section 271(1)(c) as income disclosed by assessee in pursuance to search was not based on incriminating document.
