It is held that transaction within the family and close relative are covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(viii)(c) and there is no application of the said section for taxing the income under the head ‘Income from other sources’. The provisions of s. 56(2)(viii)(c)(ii) shall not apply in case of money or any property received from any close relative.
The assessee operates as a global services advisory and research company. Assessee assists corporations in developing and implementing leading edge sourcing strategies including captive outsourced and shared services approaches.
Vanditbhai Rajendrakumar Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Facts- The brief facts of the case were that as per AIR information, the Ld. Assessing Officer came know that the assessee had received cash deposits of Rs. 25,21,100/-in saving bank account maintained with Corporation Bank. To verify cash deposits, letter dated 10-02-2017 was served on the assessee, […]
Batra Enterprises Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The facts relating to the ground are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 2,74,846/- being commission paid to Shri Ishan Batra. In response to the query of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had stated that Shri […]
DCIT Vs JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) In the present case, undisputed facts are that the commission has been paid to various nonresident entities in respect of sales affected by the assessee outside of India, the services have been rendered outside of India and the payments have been made outside of India. In light […]
Smt. Manjulaben C. Tomar Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The present application filed by the assessee seeks restoration of the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.956/Ahd/2012, pertaining to A.Y 2006-07 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.03.2017. We have noted that the said appeal was disposed off without dealing with […]
Infosys Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The relevant ground with regard to the above issue are grounds 9.1 to 9.3. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nagarjuna Fertilizders and Chemicals Ltd. v. ACIT reported in (2017) 78 taxmann.com 264 had held if rate of tax applicable under DTAA is lower than […]
Chinna Ponnu Ammal Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) After perusal of Form No.10B as placed on record, it could be seen that the assessee has applied an amount of Rs.5,55,57,015/- for the purpose of charitable trust. However, as per Explanation-3 to Sec.11(1), the disallowance of Rs.48,69,504/- u/s 40(a)(ia) would not be considered as application of […]
Sri Suhas Suresh Shet Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant is able to demonstrate that there was ‘sufficient cause’ in preferring appeal beyond the limitation period. The Courts have also held that […]
AXA France Vie Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is evident, the demand in dispute is as a result of disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to alleged non-compliance with the provisions of section 194D of the Act. It is the claim of the assessee that the provision contained under section 194D is […]
