Assessee has taken all the necessary steps to facilitate the building of Metro Rail System. Since the assessee has taken steps in furtherance of its main objects, it cannot be stated that the assessee has not commenced its business.
Aforesaid appeal of the assessee is against assessment order dated 31st January 2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2013–14 in pursuance to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel–1, Mumbai, (DRP), dated 18th November 2016.
Advertisement expenditure incurred after certification by Board of Film Censors cannot be included as part of cost of production, hence, provisions of rule 9A, will not apply. It was held, the expenditure incurred in regular course of business has to be allowed under section 37.
TDS is applicable in case of payment of any sum towards fees for professional services. He submitted, the term any sum, used in section 194J would denote payment in money terms and not in kind.
It was submitted by the assessee that ISO 27001 and ISO 9001:2008 certification are valid for a period of three years but they are neither intangible fixed asset nor transferrable. Hence, the expenditure incurred for obtaining such certificate is revenue in nature as the certificates can be withdrawn if the assessee does not adhere to the requirement of the certificates.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was trying to substitute a legally permissible view taken by the Id. AO with another view which was not a rational one. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) has clearly held that revisionary powers u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked for substituting a lawful view taken by the Id. Assessing Officer, with another view.
ground raised by appellant was in respect of disallowing of an amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- being professional fees returned to Star India P. Ltd. The said amount had been incurred by the appellant for the purposes of his profession and on grounds of commercial expediency.
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue emanating out of the orders of learned CIT(Appeals)-III, Nagpur for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Since the issues are connected and the appeals were heard together
ITAT held that amount surrendered by way of investment in the unrecorded stock of rice has to be brought to tax under the head business income. It Further held that Only real income can be taxed, hypothetical income cannot be taxed nor income can be taxed in vacuum.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. To put the facts very simply in a narrow compass , the assessee company is a tax resident of United Kingdom which was incorporated on 26th of June 2006. On 30/06/2006
