Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and in such circumstances, if payee has paid tax to government account then payer cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS.
If the assessee has huge interest free funds including the profit earned by it during the year, which is sufficient to cover the advancement of loan, then no interest could be disallowed under section 36(i)(iii).
ITAT held that As there was part non-compliance by assessee with first notice under section 142(1) and complete non-compliance with subsequent notice under section 142(1), the AO was right in framing assessment order under section 144 and in denying allowance of interest and salary paid to partners by taking support of provisions of section 184(5).
No addition could be made under section 153A for an unabated assessment unless incriminating materials unearthed during search qua the assessment year under consideration.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
provisions of section 142A of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the DVO for the purpose of estimation of the value of the asset, property or investment and get a copy of the report from the DVO. The word ‘may’ makes it discretionary to refer the matter to the DVO. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it is mandatory.
Where assessee did not deposit sale consideration in the bank account maintained under the capital gains scheme before the due date of filing of return but otherwise purchased new house within two years, as stipulated in section 54F(1), then deduction under section 54F could not be denied to assessee.
Consideration received by assessee for use of or for granting the right to use a computer software would not amount to royalty as the amount received by assessee towards sale of software was on account of sale of ‘copyrighted article’ and not on transfer of any ‘copyright right’.Hence, the said sale proceeds could not be characterised as ‘Royalty’ as per Article 12 of the India-Ireland DTAA.
Ixia Technologies International Ltd. Vs ACIT(IT) (ITAT Kolkata) Since assessee`s case is covered by beneficial provisions of the India-Ireland DTAA, hence the retrospective amendment made in the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, which provides that royalty would include consideration for transfer of all or any rights in respect of any right property, (including […]
Shri Baldev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We have gone through the orders of the authorities below in the light of the arguments on either side and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited above. In the case of Ghanshyam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that the additional amount u/s […]
