Jagdish Narayan Sharma Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) A perusal of sections 246 to 251 of the Act makes it clear that any questions arising out of the assessment orders in an appeal by the assessee can be possible and wide powers are given to the appellate authority, but these powers are circumscribed by the assessment […]
It was explained by the appellant that the money deposited in the bank account represented cash received from elder son, who was tax payer and the withdrawals in the bank account had a a chronologically progressive linkage of events.
Dongfang Electric (India) P Ltd Vs DCWT (ITAT Kolkata) Assets deployed for service activities are treated as productive assets and accordingly the construction / set up of office and service centre by the assessee and used as such for its business purposes would be outside the ambit of wealth tax in the same manner in […]
Meenu Goel Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has submitted various documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares which includes a copy of purchase bill dated 22.02.2010; a copy of share transfer form in the favour of the assessee; Copy of bank statement highlighting the payment made […]
Challenging the order dated 28/01/2016 of CIT(A)-8,Mumbai,the Assessing Officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. The assessee has raised a Cross Objection for the same.Assessee – company engaged in providing cellular mobile services and trades in accessories filed its return of income at Rs.Nil after set off of brought forward business loss.
Excess stock found during the course of survey and surrender made thereof was found to be taxable under the head |Income from business or profession|. Similarly, in respect of excess cash found out of sale of goods in which assessee was dealing was also found to be taxable as business income thus, there was no justification for taxing such income under section 115BBE.
Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah DCIT Vs. M/s. Skoda Auto A.S. (ITAT Pune) In this case, one of the ground raised by Revenue was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel was right in directing AO to delete proposed addition on account of reversal of provision for Royalty of Rs.1,39,18,474/-, […]
Rendering of services for domain registration is rendering of services in connection with the use of an intangible property which is similar to trademark. Therefore, the charges received by the assessee for services rendered in respect of domain name is royalty within the meaning of Clause (vi) read with Clause (iii) of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) of Income-tax Act.
Bonus shares issued on original shares by investing convertible foreign exchange were also foreign exchange asset under section 115E. Therefore, the shares sold by the assessee have mightly treated as long-term capital assets and being the assets acquired by way of foreign exchange fell within the definition of foreign exchange asset under section 115E(b). Hence, the assessee was eligible for a concessional rate of 10% under section 115E.
Assessee’s contention for levy of interest for the second month could arise only if the period of time between the date on which tax was deducted and the date on which tax was paid to the Government exceeds one month, was justified. Thus, AO was directed to re-compute the levy of interest under section 201(1A) accordingly.
