Veolia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ground- Learned CIT(A) has erred in considering amounts aggregating to Rs.26,839,975 towards Value Added Tax and Service Tax included in the customer’s work order as constituting part of construction contract value for the purposes of recognizing revenue under AS7. The CBDT Circular No. 4/2008 dated 04.04.2008 clarified […]
Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Mumbai ITAT worked from home and lifted attachment u/s 226(3) from Bank and debtors of COVID quarantine facilities constructor 1. The taxpayer sought an urgent hearing in respect of the recovery of the Income-tax demand of Rs. 2.91 Crores for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The total income […]
Harina Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is that whether the loan received from two directors can be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act? In the given case, the assessee has received amount from two of its directors. The assessee could file only ledger account extract […]
Interest income earned from investments with treasuries and banks is part of banking activity of the assessee, and therefore, the said interest income was eligible to be assessed as ‘income from business’ instead of ‘income from other sources’
Surcharge and Education Cess was not leviable on receipts in the nature of Royalties and reimbursements of other expenses, which was offered to tax by assesse on gross basis under the India – France DTAA.
Chordia Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the action taken by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 148 is justified in law? The case of assessee was originally selected for scrutiny and a detailed questionnarie was issued alongwith notice u/s 142(1). The AO asked specific queries with regard to […]
Delay in filing declarations in Form 27C being a technical breach was thus condoned and the same were being admitted as there was substantial compliance with the requirement of filing the declarations.
Since assessee had no intention to make a full and true disclosure of its income as it would not have filed a revised return of income showing higher income before issuance of the notice 143(2)/142(1) by AO, therefore, AO rightly held that assessee had deliberately and consciously failed to furnish full and true particulars of income and attempted to conceal income and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.
Once the domestic law prohibits allowing any deduction for the purpose of calculating ‘fees for technical services/fees for included services’, then, the same was not an allowable deduction and, therefore, AO and CIT(A) were right in holding that the assessee was liable to be taxed on gross basis rather than on net basis.
If the taxpayer was in a position to carry a transaction in two alternative ways, one of which would result in lower tax liability, the assessee would be at liberty to choose that particular method. Pursuant to the terms of both the agreements, the transactions had been carried out and assessee as well as other 6 persons had offered their respective share of rental income in their own tax returns thus, the agreement could not be termed as sham agreement or an artificial structure with a view to evade tax liability.
