As per para 7, 8 and 9 of the Accounting Standard 26 (AS 26) issued by the ICAI, the definition of intangible asset and trade mark specifically includes brand names.It was held by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal that brand is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act.
In the present case As assessee had established nexus of interest expenses with its main activity of financing and there was not a single amount of interest bearing borrowings which could be related with investment which yielded tax-free dividend income, no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for. AO was directed to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at the rate of 0.5% of investments which actually have resulted in the exempt dividend income.
The Nainital Bank Ltd. Vs Asstt. (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee furnished all the facts and figures including the earning of the tax free income and the expenditure which was accepted by the learned AO, it is not open for the AO to say that the income escaped assessment because assessee did not reveal the […]
Explanation offered by the assessee would constitute ‘reasonable cause’ within the meaning of section 273B of the Act and hence the assessee would be entitled for immunity from levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act.
Skaps Industries India Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be read as a limitation to the treaty superiority under Section 90(2), we are of the considered view that an eligible assessee cannot be declined the treaty protection under section 90(2) on the ground that the […]
This appeal, filed by the assesseee, being ITA No. 2960/Mum/2016, is directed against the appellate order dated 16.02.2016 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane (hereinafter called the CIT(A)), for assessment year 2011-12, appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).
Granting tax relief to Deloitte India, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the provisions relating to Tax deduction at Source (TDS) are not applicable to the professional fee paid by them to its Group Entities in US and Singapore.
That the Commissioner (Appeals) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, grossly erred on facts and in law in observing that the surrender made by the assessee is not in course of the statement recorded under section 132(4) and hence section 271 AAA benefit cannot be granted to the appellant.
Shri Jafrudin Kaji Vs The ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee sold land for Rs.72 lakhs as evident from the sale deed. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that the amount of cash deposits represents the sale consideration of agriculture land is without any substance. However, […]
Discounting charges are outside the purview of interest expenses, therefore, in our considered view, the question of making any disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS on such discounting charges does not arise.
