DCIT Vs IMCD Group B.V. India Branch (ITAT Mumbai)- The issue under consideration is whether the depreciation is allowed on Non- Compete Fees under section 32 of the Income Tax Act?
DCIT-Exemptions Vs Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find that main object of assessee company was converted as per Section 25 of Companies Act clarifies that assessee company is in area of environmental protection, abetment of pollution of water, air, solid, etc. generated by industrial units in and around Vatva and Odhav area of […]
Since assessee had sufficient documentary evidences before AO to prove that money routed from assessee itself which came back to assessee in the form of share capital/premium and AO neither made any further enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by assessee nor verify the trail of the source of funds received by assessee through various entities thus, assessee had been able to prove that it had received genuine amounts which was routed through various companies.
Provisions of section 56(2)(viia) was not applicable on acquisition of shares of a foreign company from its directors because as per rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines “balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company and the amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 was prospective in nature. If the computation provisions could not apply, the charging section also could not apply as both sections should be read together in order to make the said provisions workable in accordance with law.
Services rendered by foreign concern for introducing a client did not make-available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to assessee, therefore, related payment did not fall within the realm of “Fees for included services” as envisaged in Article 12 of the Indo-US, DTAA and payment made to foreign concern constituted its business profits within the meaning of Article 7 Indo-USA DTAA, and in the absence of any Permanent Establishment of the said foreign concern in India no taxability arose and, therefore, assessee was not liable to withhold tax under section 195.
Assessee in instant case had purchased three properties on three different dates. This indicated that assessee had purchased the land on piece meal basis. Since value mentioned in each sale deed was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, section 194-IA would not be applicable to assessee merely because the seller and Khasra number of the three properties was same.
Consideration of 14 flats for giving up related rights in favour of developer was received by assessee within a period of three years from the date of JDA. In such circumstances, concerned flats assumed the character of ‘short-term’ capital asset and gain on such transfer was rightly assessed by AO as STCG.
Ld. CIT acted mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation when he merely wrote on the format Yes, I am satisfied. In the case in hand, the Id. CIT has even not written any affirmative sentence or word but has just signed against the column which was pre-typed Yes.
Prohibition imposed by Indian Medical Council against acceptance of gift was on medical practitioner/doctor, and not on pharmaceutical companies, therefore, where assessee incurred expenditure towards gifts, which were bearing logo and name of the assessee, the expenditure were only for sales promotion, therefore, disallowance made by AO in respect of the expenditure was unjustified.
If at the time of giving the donation to the research Institute it had a valid registration granted under the Act, subsequent withdrawal of such approval with retrospective effect would not be a reason to deny deduction claimed by the donor under under section 35(1)(ii) for Scientific research expenditure.
