The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed set off of income from other sources against other heads of income because up to assessment year 2016-2017 there was no prohibition on set off of losses. It was contended that the amendment to section 115BBE of the I.T.Act restricting the set off of any loss was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017 only, hence, not applicable to the concerned assessment year 2015-2016.
The assessee is one of the group companies of China based TIENS Group of Companies. The business of the assessee, is Trading/Distribution of Food Supplements and Health Care Equipments. The products dealt with by the Company are basically products manufactured at China or other places by Group concerns. Another Group Entity Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Company Limited, incorporated at China has established a Foreign Branch Office in India.
DCIT Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) So far as the amount of Rs.920 lakhs deleted by the CIT(A) in respect of Shiroki Corporation is concerned, we find from the details furnished by the assessee that Shiroki Corporation is a Japan based related party of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee […]
Sree Sankeswara Foundations and Investments Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The appellant namely M/s. Sree Sankeswara Foundations and Investments is a Partnership firm constituted under the Partnership Act. It is engaged in the business of real estate. The return of income for the AY 2016-17 was filed. Against the said return of income, the assessment was […]
Since the final assessment orders after amalgamation was passed in the name of non-existent company by the AO, the same was bad in law and therefore, set aside.
Celltick Technologies Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) If the arms length principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India e find that the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the rental income earned by the assessee is taxable under the head “Income from House Property” as claimed by the assessee in the return of income or under the head “Income from Business” as held by the AO in the assessment order.
Income from cloud services was neither taxable as ‘royalty’ nor as ‘fees for included services’ as the customers did not operate the equipment or have physical access to or control over the equipment used by the assessee to provide cloud support services and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc.
The Agreement refers to the US parent company of the Assessee having acquired license to use EDA tools from the vendors and the right of the Assessee to use the same and the fact that billing will be done on the Assessee on the basis of actual use of the software by the Assessee. It is thus clear that the Assessee had acquired no right or interest whatsoever in the EDA tools and had only a right to use the software. It is not the case of the revenue that the EDA tools was not connected to the business of the Assessee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the deduction was rightly allowed by the CIT(A) as revenue expenditure.
Provision for warrant expenses was not contingent and had to be allowed as deduction while computing income under the head Income from Business & Profession. Thus, the addition made to the book profits under section 115JB was to be deleted because the liability could not be said to be contingent.
