Sunil Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act after a period of […]
ACIT Vs M/s Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) 1. Expenses on replantation without any expansion of plantation area or replantation in an abandoned area are not capital expenditure Capital expenditure involves an investment increasing the capital for higher profit. The expansion means extension of plantation to an additional area. An area already abandoned, […]
There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in course of the assessment proceedings, provided, the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act is available. That being the case, the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be held as invalid.
As per para 7, 8 and 9 of the Accounting Standard 26 (AS 26) issued by the ICAI, the definition of intangible asset and trade mark specifically includes brand names.It was held by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal that brand is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act.
In the present case As assessee had established nexus of interest expenses with its main activity of financing and there was not a single amount of interest bearing borrowings which could be related with investment which yielded tax-free dividend income, no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for. AO was directed to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at the rate of 0.5% of investments which actually have resulted in the exempt dividend income.
The Nainital Bank Ltd. Vs Asstt. (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee furnished all the facts and figures including the earning of the tax free income and the expenditure which was accepted by the learned AO, it is not open for the AO to say that the income escaped assessment because assessee did not reveal the […]
Explanation offered by the assessee would constitute ‘reasonable cause’ within the meaning of section 273B of the Act and hence the assessee would be entitled for immunity from levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act.
Skaps Industries India Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be read as a limitation to the treaty superiority under Section 90(2), we are of the considered view that an eligible assessee cannot be declined the treaty protection under section 90(2) on the ground that the […]
This appeal, filed by the assesseee, being ITA No. 2960/Mum/2016, is directed against the appellate order dated 16.02.2016 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane (hereinafter called the CIT(A)), for assessment year 2011-12, appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).
Granting tax relief to Deloitte India, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the provisions relating to Tax deduction at Source (TDS) are not applicable to the professional fee paid by them to its Group Entities in US and Singapore.
