Institute of Health Systems Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee’s activity comes within the purview of exceptions provided sub-section (15) of sub-clause (i) for the reason that the activity of the assessee is testing of the water quality, which monitors quality in reservoirs and slum areas, for that, assessee has charged some fee and almost the […]
Where sundry creditors arising out of the purchases debited in the profit and loss account as revenue expenses, were added to income of assessee for want of the addresses of said creditors, that did not mean assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, so as to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c).
ITO (Exemptions) Vs Serum Institute of India Research Foundation (ITAT Pune) Corpus donations received by the Trusts, which is not registered u/s.12A/12AA of the Act, are not taxable as they assume the nature of ‘Capital receipt’ the moment the donations are given to the “Corpus of the Trust”. Provisions of section (24)(iia)/12(1)/11(1)(d)/35/56(2) are relevant for […]
ACIT Vs Lux Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Since export commission payments to non-resident agents were not taxable in India, as agents were remaining outside, services were rendered abroad and payments were also made abroad TDS under section 195 was therefore, not deductible from payment made to NRI agents. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT These […]
1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 21.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2010-11.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from capital gain and other sources. She filed her return of income on 24.08.2011 declaring total income of Rs.8,60,074/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has sold share of M/s J.T.
This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, (in short CIT(A)) in appeal No. CIT(A)-5/DCIT-2(2)/IT-118/2006-07 dated 15-11-2011. The Assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-2(2), Mumbai (in short DCIT) for the assessment year 2004-05 vide order even dated 18-12-2006 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act).
It was submitted by the assessee that the fees were paid for marketing service rendered outside India and hence, did not become chargeable to tax in India requiring tax deduction u/s. 195 of the Act.
Where AO was of view that assessee had made bogus purchase on the ground that no proof of transportation and lorry receipt was filed, however, AO was not justified in making addition of 25% of purchase amount and addition was to be restricted to 5% of purchase.
Challenging the order dated 02.03.2015 in Appeal No 98/13-14/GZN/63 for the assessment year 2010-11 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (for short hereinafter called as the learned CIT(A)), the assessee preferred this appeal.
