Whether the TPO was legally justified in holding that AMP expenditure was not an international transaction even though the assessee was performing DEMPE functions for its AE and doing activity of brand building?
Hence, the contention of the assessee investment made for acquiring controlling interest in Dabur India Ltd should not be subject to disallowance under section 14A is rejected.
DCIT Vs Ajanta Tubes Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the A.O. is correct in rejecting the valuation report obtained by the assessee? In the present case, assessee had sold its land and building. Assessee had taken the cost of acquisition for land as per valuation report as at 1-4-1981 as against […]
Ashapura Minichem Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 is justified in law? The assessee before us is a listed public limited company engaged in the business of mining bauxite and selling the same in domestic as well as international market. In the present case […]
Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the assessment will sustain even if the Assessing Officer ignoring the statutory provisions of section 144C, passed the Final assessment order without issuing draft assessment order to the assessee? In the present case, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2017 remanded the […]
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in holding that shares of listed companies received by the appellant company as gift without consideration, as part of internal family realignment amongst members of the family, could not be regarded as valid “gift”, and further considering the same to be sham and colorable transactions?
ITAT state that the issue where one turnover can be taxed in the hands of two different assessee one being partnership firm M/s. Satyam Builders and another being proprietary concern of the assessee namely satyam Builders. The answer is emphatically No.
Transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were relating to the sale of agriculture crops, therefore, there was no receipt or repayment of loan or deposit, accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 E of the Act is also deleted.
The issue under consideration is whether the appellant was to be assessed in the capacity of an Association of Person (AOP) or the members of the AOP were assessable to tax separately in their individual capacity?
The issue under consideration is whether the maintenance service charges is charged under head income from house property along with rent?
