SCA Hygiene Products AB (Essity Hygiene And Health AB) Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In order to decide whether or not the services rendered by the assessee fit the definition of ‘fees for technical services’, as applicable under the Indo Swedish tax treaty, the question that we must ask ourselves is not only whether the technical […]
M/s SRL Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Mere finding the assessment order is erroneous does not give power to Ld. PCIT to annul the assessment order. It is duty imposed by the provision of section 263 that Ld. PCIT has to determine and satisfy both the conditions that the order passed by AO […]
No income tax applicable on receipt of software license fees from an Indian subsidiary as it was reimbursement of software licence fees paid by assessee to a third party, and, therefore, it could not constitute income taxable in the hands of assessee.
Mere suspicion of likely escapement of income was not a ground for revision by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act. Such an order was bad in law.
ACIT Vs Eagleton Property Holdings (ITAT Bangalore) Whether the deduction under section 80IB(10) can be allowed on proportionate basis in respect of residential units having a built up area of 1500 sq.ft. or less. On this aspect, the CIT(A) held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on […]
Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Honable High Court of Bombay in the case of Sesa Gold Limited (supra), therein conclude that ‘Education Cess’ and the Secondary and Higher Education Cess is not disallowable as a deduction u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act. FULL […]
In the absence of the notice under section 143(2), assessment framed by AO was liable to be quashed as invalid also when Pr. CIT has granted approval under section 151 in a mechanical manner by putting only ‘Yes’ which was not valid for initiating reassessment proceedings.
TDS under section 194H was not required to be deducted on discount allowed to distributors on sale of Set Top Box and hardware, recharge coupons vouchers because transaction between assessee company and distributor was on principal-to-principal basis and all the risk, loss, damages were transferred to distributor on delivery and it was a sale but not service to come within the ambit of definition of commission as defined under section 194H.
In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. No addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect.
Maurice Patrick De Rebello Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The facts of the assessee’s case are similar to the case of Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma reported in 331 ITR 221 (Kar.) In the case of K.G.Rukminiamma (supra) the assessee on a site measuring 30′ x 110′ had a residential premises. Under a joint development agreement the assessee gave that […]
