The issue under consideration is whether remuneration paid to a partner acting in a representative capacity as karta of HUF is allowed u/s 40(b)?
It is an admitted fact that except jewellery which remained duly explained, no material much less incriminating material was found during search, therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material recovered during search assessment having remained unabated as on date of search could not be interfered with while framing assessment under section 153A.
Where the impounded documents had been received by AO on 29-1-2014 and six assessment years under section 153C in case of assessee would be assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14, therefore, initiation of proceedings under section 153C by AO for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12, was illegal and not sustainable in law.
In such cases, assessments can be reopened only if an income assessable to tax has escaped on account of failure of the assessee to disclose all the material facts fully and truly. In other words, the AO has to demonstrate that income of the assessee has escaped assessment on account of its failure to disclose all material facts of the assessments in its income fully and truly.
Shri Shanmugam Senthilkumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) ITAT, Chennai advice to CIT ( Appeals) to Complete the work and hearing in office hours except in occasionally Circumstances hearing the appeals and making the tax practitioners, advocates and Chartered Accountants to wait till 9 PM to 10 PM on daily basis has to be avoid. Late […]
DCIT Vs Asian Infra Projects Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) It is quite evident that the business of the assessee was already set-up since the assessee had already reflected income from real estate business during AY 2008-09. The perusal of assessee’s financial statements for year under consideration would show that the assessee has obtained unsecured loans […]
Since AO had not carried out any exercise to rebut the contention of assessee that they have not received any sum higher than what has been reported in its books of account, therefore, no addition could be made based on the AIR and ledger of the payer
It was held that DRP’s direction to the AO for carrying out a fresh examination of the claim of the assessee u/s.10A of the Act is in violation of the clear mandate of the provisions and hence cannot be countenanced.
Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) There are two limbs in Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the first limb is valuation to be made as per the prescribed method. In fact, the method for valuation of shares is prescribed under Rule 11UA of the […]
Payment to parent company for copyrighted software on principle to principle basis cannot be treated royalty and TDS not applicable on payment to parent company not having PE in India.
