The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. P V A L Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 had an occasion to consider the impact of double taxation avoidance agreement provisions of Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that where liability to tax arises under the local enactment, the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act provide for taxation of globle income of an assessee chargeable to tax thereunder
ACIT Vs M.K. Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member These two appeals preferred – (i) by the assessee and (ii) another by the Revenue– are directed against the order of the CIT (A), Mysore, for the assessment year 2005-06. ITA NO.401 (By the assessee): 2. The assessee company has raised […]
what needs to be done by an assessing authority under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in examining the claim of an assessee that the payment made by such assessee was a deductible expenditure under $.37 of the Income-tax Act although called a penalty is to see whether the law or scheme under which the amount was paid required such payment to be made as penalty or as something akin to penalty,
Assessee is treating the securities held under the, category ‘held for maturity’ as stock-in-trade. If there is appreciation in the market value as compared to the market value at the opening of the year and such appreciation is also accounted for. It is not claiming depreciation only for the years, when the value has gone down.
4.1 The Assessing Officer from the details filed noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.3,24,91,003/- as deferred revenue expenditure. The assessee vide letter dated 15th December, 2005 submitted that a new call center was in the process of being completed, but was not completed during the year.
12. We have heard both the parties. The first contention of the learned AR is that section 195 is not applicable because the deductee is a tax resident of India and is being assessed in India. This ground of appeal has been decided by the learned CIT (A) against the deductor and the deductor has not filed any cross objection. Therefore, it cannot be held that section 195 will not be applicable
7. A plain reading of the section would show that Sub. Sec (1) of 80HHC deals with deduction to be allowed to an assessee who is engaged in the business of export of goods or merchandise. The manner of determining the profits derived from export for the purpose of computation of deduction is provided in sub-sec (3), which has three clauses (a), (b), and (c ) covering three different aspects
Where the assessee entered into a ‘secondment agreement’ with a US Company and obtained the services of an employee and the question arose whether the reimbursement by the assessee to the US Company of the salary paid by the US Company was chargeable to tax as “fees for technical services” HELD:
ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – The grounds relating to levy of interest u/s. 234B has not been considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) . However, we are inclined to hold that levy of such interest is to be mandatorily levied in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the section, which the AO is directed to levy. The agitation with respect to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is premature and is dismissed as rightly not considered by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well.
Though there is no definition of the term ‘total turnover’ in section 10A, there is also nothing in the said section to mandate that what is excluded from the numerator (export turnover) would nevertheless form part of the denominator. One would have to apply consistent standards in understanding and applying a term, particularly when, such term, viz. export turnover has an independent function and at the same time a part of a larger term viz., total turnover.Thus, if some expenses, for any reason are excluded in arriving at the ‘export turnover’ the same should be reduced form ‘total turnover’ also.
