In a recent ruling, in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2010-TIOL-670-ITAT-MUM-SB] , the Special Bench of the Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) held that prepayment of deferred sales tax liability on the Net Present Value
Limitation on deduction of expenses under Section 44D of the Act cannot be invoked if the consideration received by the foreign company is not Fees for Technical Services as defined in India-USA tax treaty
By considering the potential loss on the long standing receivables as a genuine adjustment in the course of assessment, the Tribunal has reinforced the principles that the concept of TP cannot be that of an exact science and that constant application
As the issuance of the s. 148 notice and the communication and furnishing of reasons go hand in hand, the reasons have to be supplied to the assessee before the expiry of period of 6 years. If this is not done, the validity of the s. 148 notice cannot be upheld. In any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, a summons issued without a copy of the plaint or complaint has to be construed as if no valid service of notice has been effected upon the defendant or respondents.
The TPO in his order held that the payment of incentive to employees is towards technical services rendered by the assessee to the AE and that the AE has entered into such transaction to avoid paying a mark-up on the payments. In the transfer pricing documentation, since the assessee had shown its operating profit margin at 27.95% (OP/TC), the TPO considering such margin, notionally imputed a markup on the said sum of `10,66,08,194 being the payment of incentive to employees by the associated enterprise and accordingly proposed an adjustment of `2,97,96,990.
Sinhgad Technical Education Society vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) -Though section 153C of the Income Tax Act confers jurisdiction if the Assessing Officer is ‘satisfied’ that ‘documents’ seized belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A so as to be able to assess that other person, the document must have prima facie incriminating information. The document seized must not only be a ‘speaking one’ but also be prima facie ‘incriminating one’ for attracting section 153C. If the impugned documents merely contain the notings of entries which are already recorded in the books of account or subjected to scrutiny of the AO in the past in regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, such document cannot be said to be containing the incriminating information so as to confer jurisdiction u/s 153C.
The assessee has stated that additions to the fixed assets include loss of foreign exchange rates at the year-end which is added to the written down value of the block of assets. This adjustment pertaining to fixed assets i.e. (premises) acquired in India out of foreign currency loans. The assessee was asked as to why such claim should not be disallowed. The assess
The assessee is mainly engaged in the business of rendering rating, advisory, and research and information services, and the assessee also has a unit registered under the software technology park scheme which is granted approval for “development and export of computer software, information technology and enabled services”. During the course of asse
The activity of frequent buying and selling of shares over a short span of period has to be treated as business being adventure in the nature of trade and the income has to be treated as business income and not as capital gain.
The DOT licence fee paid by assessee is not in the nature of capital expenditure falling under section 35ABB, but the same is revenue in nature, allowable under section 37(1)
