Saif Ali Khan Pataudi Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case the property or part thereof was vacant during the period, the proportion deduction should be allowed from the sum on which the property might reasonably be let out from year to year. We find that it is the plea of the assessee that due to […]
Where assessee had independently acquired multiple flats, which, however, were joined together and used by the assessee as a single residential unit, the claim for exemption under section 54 in respect of total investment made towards acquisition of the said flats could not be denied.
DCIT Vs M/s. B S. Infosolution Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Held that No prudent person with some commercial prudence would pay a hefty premium of Rs. 190/- on a book value of Rs. 82/-, hold it for one year, and then sell the same shares at book value. Further Though the premium is justified […]
DCIT Vs M/s Divya Shakti Trading Services Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In this case assessee has purchased and sold scrips multiple times, on various dates alleged to have been held as investment within small duration. The magnitude of purchases on each date has been very large in respect of all these shares. Thus in our considered opinion frequency and volume […]
By virtue of JDA, assessee was parting with a portion of its land and in consideration thereof, was receiving built-up area on the land retained by it which was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) however, AO was directed to re-compute the capital gain again by considering only elements which were necessary for the construction of the building as the cost of construction, and not the entire expenditure of the builder, including the compensation agreed to be paid to K and also the finance charges etc., which were not relevant for computing the cost of the construction.
Usance interest paid for the delayed payment to its holding company was not any part of purchase price of goods and was interest within the definition of term ‘interest’ under section 2(28A), therefore, assessee was liable to withhold tax under section 195 from said payment.
Where the partners of assessee firm were working partners entitled to salary and interest as per the partnership dead payment of such interest and salary was allowable in case best judgment assessment is made by AO.
Where assessee (Indian branch office) had reimbursed the payments towards management charges to its overseas head office, addition under section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified because it was against the object of Indo-US DTAA.
Sagar Dutta Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Penalty under section 271B justified on Assessee who was Partner in M/s. Price Waterhouse which is a partnership firm for his Failure to get his accounts audited as his remuneration was exceeding the limit specified U/s. 44AB. We find that in the instant case penalty of Rs.37,080/- was imposed […]
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Int. Taxation)- ITAT Delhi Analysis of the Samsung Case on the Determination of a Permanent Establishment (PE) for Services Provided by Seconded Employees of a Korean Parent to Its Subsidiary in India This article examines the ruling of the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT or […]
