The AO had made out a case that if the assessee company had paid dividend instead of remuneration to directors, such payment would have been fetched more tax. In our considered opinion, there is no question of changing the character of transaction from payment of salary to the possible payment of dividend, resulting into potential higher inflow of tax.
It is the case of the assessee that the rent payment to the licensor is independent of the CAM charges payable and thus the CAM charges cannot partake the character of rent. The assessee thus contends that the deduction rate applicable on CAM charges @2% under Section 194C has been rightly deducted.
There is no provision under head Profits and Gains from business or profession which deems rental income from unsold flats held as stock as Business income.
Sureshbhai Vihabhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute to the fact that there is a downfall in the gross profit ratio declared by the assessee in the year under consideration in comparison to the earlier years. But the controversy arises whether the downfall in the gross profit ratio gives the authority to […]
By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the payment for breach of contractual obligation pursuant to an arbitration award in the pending litigation, cannot be said to have been incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law.
DCIT Vs Barclays Global Service Centre Private Limited (ITAT Pune) The issue that arises for our consideration is whether or not an assessment order passed in the name of amalgamating company i.e. non-existing company, is valid in the eyes of law. There is no dispute about the fact that the factum of amalgamation was put […]
ITAT Kolkata ruling on Anushree Agarwal vs ACIT case. Analysis of disallowed interest and additions. Get insights into the key decisions and conclusions.
Prasanta Kumar Mishra Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) Admittedly, the assessee individual is a non-resident Indian and the facts clearly show that the return has been filed with mistakes. These mistakes can admittedly be rectified by filing a rectification application. The rectification application admittedly is not being considered on account of the limitation provided u/s. 154(7) […]
PMS performance fees cannot be estimated before hand for the purpose of calculation of advance tax payable during the year because of uncertainty about the equity market since the performance fees can be ascertained by the assessee only on the last day of the year based on the stock market position as at the end of that day. I
Since the revised return of income was filed on 19.03.2015 u/s 139(4) of the Act, it was a valid revised return as per the law in force at that time. In such a scenario, the AO ought to have considered the revised return of income for assessing the income of assessee.
