Indo-UK DTAA must be read as forming part of Indo-Spain DTAA as well and, therefore, the payment made by the assessee to the Spanish company for fabric testing would not constitute fee for technical services and consequently, section 195 of the Act has no application to such a receipt.
ITO Vs Globsyn Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) is the contention of the ld. AR is that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served within the stipulated time prescribed in the Act and the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Further he submitted that the […]
Gulab Badgujar (HUF) Vs CIT (Central) (ITAT Pune) The question which arises is the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessment proceedings were re-opened on specific reasons recorded for re-opening. We […]
Section 5(2)(a) provides that only such income of non-resident would be subjected to tax in India that is either received or is deemed to be received in India, therefore, salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign ship could not be included in total income merely because salary has been credited in the NRE/NRO account maintained with an Indian Bank by the seafarer.
M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head ‘income from house property’ on the 32 unsold flats/shops by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in […]
Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and in such circumstances, if payee has paid tax to government account then payer cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS.
If the assessee has huge interest free funds including the profit earned by it during the year, which is sufficient to cover the advancement of loan, then no interest could be disallowed under section 36(i)(iii).
ITAT held that As there was part non-compliance by assessee with first notice under section 142(1) and complete non-compliance with subsequent notice under section 142(1), the AO was right in framing assessment order under section 144 and in denying allowance of interest and salary paid to partners by taking support of provisions of section 184(5).
No addition could be made under section 153A for an unabated assessment unless incriminating materials unearthed during search qua the assessment year under consideration.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
