Payment to non-resident towards purchase of advertisement space for resale to advertisers in India constituted ‘Royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) and assessee was under an obligation to withhold tax under section 195.
Where assessee did permit developer to enter into premises and do all necessary things for construction of apartments and assessee handed over the possession, provisions of section 2(47) got attracted.
Where assessee’s debtor directly made payment through banking channel to assessee’s creditor to square up their account, provisions of section 40A(3) would not be attracted.
DCIT Vs Progressive Constructions Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Expenditure incurred for gaining right to operate the project facility and collect toll charges resulted into an intangible asset eligible for depreciation Conclusion: Expenditure incurred by assessee of Rs.214 crore for creating the project or project facilities had created an intangible asset in the form of right to operate […]
Additions could not be made in respect of assessments already completed if no incriminating material was found during search or during 153A proceedings.
Compensation received by foreign companies from assessee for loss of business/profit would constitute business receipts in the hands of foreign companies but the same was not liable for TDS under section 195 as the foreign companies did not have permanent establishment in India.
Amount received by a retired partner from its erstwhile partnership firm could not be claimed as exempt under section 10(2A) as the reading of section makes it clear that it makes profit of a firm assessed as such exempt in the hands of its partners and assessee was not at all partner in the said firm.
Income on sale of a technical concept, that assessee developed on his own, with respect to website malware monitoring was non-compete fee taxable as business income under section 28(va) as the consideration was in respect of parting the knowledge by assessee concerning confidential information relating to the business.
M/s Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Banglore) We have held that the sole basis of reopening of the assessment is the information received from the CBI. It is an undisputed fact that AO did not supply those materials to the assessee and also did not confront them with the assessee. Hence, we are […]
Murtuza Shabbir Jamnagarwala Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Conclusion: Assessee was entited for exemption u/s. 54B as the land transferred by assessee was “Jirayat” type of agricultural land and the same was cultivated land as “Jowar crop” was grown on the same in last four years in line. Held: Assessee, along with other two co-owners, entered […]
