The ITAT Delhi in the above cited case held that the need , rendition and benefit test for services availed by the assessee from associated enterprises should be applied having regard to the assessee’s business and not in a generic manner. TPO should have given due thought to the requirements ,benefits and manner of rendition of services by AEs before jumping to the conclusion that
Assessee being developer of SEZ was eligible for deduction under section 80-IAB for income earned from operation and maintenance of SEZ.
Show cause notice under section 274 not spelling out the specific ground on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed, was defective and, therefore, penalty was deleted.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that Advertising, Promotion and Marketing expenses (AMP) cannot be considered as international transaction unless there exist an agreement between the assessee and its AE to share/reimburse the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India.
Undisputedly the AO has not made assessment on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 rather proceeded u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of some pre-search enquiries to make an addition
The nature of services rendered by the subsidiaries to the assessee were in respect of simple marketing services of introducing foreign institutional investors to invest in capital markets in India so that the assessee would improve its business in India.
Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Kolkata) We find that on perusal of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto assessment year 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the […]
In case, the owner of a brand name allows its usage to another entity, then a fee is recovered as a mode of compensation which is generally known as brand royalty.
Assessee inter alia contended that the consideration was received as per the settlement agreement and vetted by Tomlin order of the Court of U.K. in consideration of restraining the assessee from the use of the name ‘Longman’ and as such, it is a capital receipt not liable to tax at all.
Deduction u/s 80HH of the Act in respect of profit and gains from newly established industrial undertaking in backward areas would be given subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as provided in sub section (2) of the said provision. In the case in hand it is not the case of the AO that the assessee […]
