ACIT Vs Lux Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Since export commission payments to non-resident agents were not taxable in India, as agents were remaining outside, services were rendered abroad and payments were also made abroad TDS under section 195 was therefore, not deductible from payment made to NRI agents. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT These […]
1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 21.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2010-11.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from capital gain and other sources. She filed her return of income on 24.08.2011 declaring total income of Rs.8,60,074/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has sold share of M/s J.T.
This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, (in short CIT(A)) in appeal No. CIT(A)-5/DCIT-2(2)/IT-118/2006-07 dated 15-11-2011. The Assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-2(2), Mumbai (in short DCIT) for the assessment year 2004-05 vide order even dated 18-12-2006 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act).
It was submitted by the assessee that the fees were paid for marketing service rendered outside India and hence, did not become chargeable to tax in India requiring tax deduction u/s. 195 of the Act.
Where AO was of view that assessee had made bogus purchase on the ground that no proof of transportation and lorry receipt was filed, however, AO was not justified in making addition of 25% of purchase amount and addition was to be restricted to 5% of purchase.
Challenging the order dated 02.03.2015 in Appeal No 98/13-14/GZN/63 for the assessment year 2010-11 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (for short hereinafter called as the learned CIT(A)), the assessee preferred this appeal.
Notice u/s 148 of the Act can only be issued if the income escaping assessment amounts to, or is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lac. Non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs. 1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 26th March, 2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,72,940/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Aggarwal Associates and Jainco Group of cases and their relatives on 19.10.2011.
This bunch of appeals for AY 2013-14 are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior against upholding levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the Act).
