Dulari Devi Hetamsaria (L/H of Shyam Sundar Hetamsaria) Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Mumbai, in the case of M/s John Flower ( India) Pvt. Ltd, in ITA No.7545/Mum/2014, for A.Y. 2010-11, order dated 25.01.2017 held that if the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee is less […]
The issue under consideration is whether the TPO is correct in considering subvention fee in the BPO segment instead of distribution segment?
The issue under consideration is whether the sale of shares by a Cyprus company to the assessee of an Indian company, who was holding a technology Park [immovable property] as only asset, is taxable in India in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Cyprus?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition under section 68 is done by AO is justified in law whenm addition was based on third party statements which were retracted by them and Assessee was not given opportunity to cross examine them and when Addition are based merely on Surmises?
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the payment for provision of transponder capacity is in the nature of Royalty?
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding initiated after 4.5 years from date of original assessment order is justified in lawand also when order was silent about the levy of penalty under section 271B?
ITAT states that, disclosure of manner in which undisclosed income was earned and substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income was earned are two different things. Hence, there is no clarity in the stand of the Revenue for initiation of penalty under Section 271AAA,
Merely because assessee has inserted some figures, which are not in coherence with the other figures in the income tax return, there is a mistake apparent from the record, which needs to be rectified. Thus, the lower authorities are not justified in rejecting the application under section 154 of the act of the assessee. Hence, ITAT allow the appeal of the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether the receipt of advance vis-a-vis no accumulated profit in case of lending company is considered as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e)?
Once the claim under section 35D of the Act was accepted in the initial year i.e. AY 1995-96, then the clock had started running in favour of the assessee which was to continue for the entire period of ten years and the benefit once granted in the initial year could not be denied in the subsequent years.
