CIT Vs Sinochem India co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The purchase of intellectual property rights by the assess are not disputed. Consideration paid is also not disputed. The nature and character of the intellectual property rights, as noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), are again not disputed. The intellectual […]
Origins Build-Tech Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Issue- The learned CIT(A)-8 is unjustified & erred in law by confirming the imposing of late filing levy by ACIT [CPC-TDS) of Rs.30800/- u/s 234E determined to be payable by processing TDS statement u/s 200A, without issuing show cause notice. The late fee u/s 234E is penal in nature […]
DCIT Vs Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The appellant before us is a company which has received a sum of Rs.90 crores from other concern, i.e. Portescap. The assessee-company as well as the other concern, i.e. Portescap, have common shareholders inasmuch as the entire shareholding of the assessee-company as well as that […]
Onus is heavily upon the revenue to establish that that assessee’s activity had crossed the threshold period of 12 months and hence constitutes PE in India in terms of Article 5(2)(g) so as to tax the receipts in India as per Article 7.
Discount on prepaid products offered to distributors by assessee engaged in telecom services was in the nature of commission which did attract of section 194H.
Undisputedly, the assessee has claimed business loss of Rs.3,90,35,968/- from MEPZ Unit at Chennai, eligible for deduction u/s 10AA. It is also not in dispute that assessee has claimed set off of this loss against the income from other units. AO proceeded to hold that loss from MEPZ unit at Chennai, which is eligible for […]
Income from undisclosed sources–Addition under section 68–No documentary evidences- As assessee failed to substantiate gift transaction with supportive evidences, AO was justified in making addition under section 68.
Explore the Apar Mukhya Adhikari vs ITO case involving TCS on Tahbazari. Section 206C(1C) scrutiny, tribunal ruling, and key legal insights discussed. Full text included.
Shri.Ram Karan Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) There is no dispute that the assessee has purchased the JCB machine vide Invoice dated 3rd June, 2011 and delivery was taken on 6th June, 2011. However, the registration of JCB with the RTO was done on 29.08.2011. We further note that in the registration charges, the RTO […]
Shri Vicky Jethani Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) We note that the assessee has claimed the gift of Rs. 8,00,000/- received from Smt. Poonaj Kanjani stated to be the Aunt of the assessee and non-resident Indian based at UAE. In support of the claim, the assessee has furnished the Bank Certificate of Bank of Baroda regarding […]
