M/s. Oxcia Enterprises Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Jodhapur) Even though the admitted position is that the assessee buyer/transferee has not deducted tax in the hands of the Joint Owners of the property, still we note that sub-section(2) of sec. 194-IA of the Act provides an exception from deducting tax of 1% of the sale […]
In the present case at the very inception notice initiating penalty is not in accordance with mandates of law. Moreover, it is settled position of law that such defect is not curable u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.
ACIT Vs Indian Hotels Company Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It was the submission of the assessee that credit card commission was out of the realm of section 194H of the Act since there was no principal-agent relationship between the merchant establishment and the bank and, therefore, the provisions relating to tax deduction at source were not […]
Savitri Kadur Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: When the partnership firm paid lump-sum amount to retiring partner, it was paid in consideration of her retirement in the partnership and assignment of her interest to other partners, the transaction would amount to transfer u/s 2(47) and liable to tax excess amount over partner’s capital account under […]
Mahnoo Khan Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine and had not condoned the delay. He mentioned that there was delay of 740 days in filing the appeal, however, the claim of the assessee is that the delay is of 217 days. […]
Indo-UK DTAA must be read as forming part of Indo-Spain DTAA as well and, therefore, the payment made by the assessee to the Spanish company for fabric testing would not constitute fee for technical services and consequently, section 195 of the Act has no application to such a receipt.
ITO Vs Globsyn Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) is the contention of the ld. AR is that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served within the stipulated time prescribed in the Act and the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Further he submitted that the […]
Gulab Badgujar (HUF) Vs CIT (Central) (ITAT Pune) The question which arises is the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessment proceedings were re-opened on specific reasons recorded for re-opening. We […]
Section 5(2)(a) provides that only such income of non-resident would be subjected to tax in India that is either received or is deemed to be received in India, therefore, salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign ship could not be included in total income merely because salary has been credited in the NRE/NRO account maintained with an Indian Bank by the seafarer.
M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head ‘income from house property’ on the 32 unsold flats/shops by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in […]
