ITAT Bangalore rules non-resident software payment not royalty. Section 195 not applicable. Full text and analysis of Altisource vs. ACIT case.
Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Jadav Vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee gets a right to the impugned property on the date of allotment letter, i.e., on 22.02.2006 and payment of instalment as per the terms is only a follow up action and taking delivery of possession is only a formality. Therefore, reckoning the period from 22.02.2006, i.e. the […]
Ram Niwas Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) is applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior […]
UL India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The next issue relates to the addition made rejecting the claim of change in method of revenue recognition. The Ld A.R fairly admitted that this issue has been decided against the assessee by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2009-10 (referred supra). We notice that this issue has […]
Muneer Enterprises Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of extraction, processing and manufacturing of iron ore for sale. The assessee owns mining lease No. 2339/2151 measuring 36.42 ha classified under category B. It has been stated that the only issue that arises out of the impugned order […]
Shilpa Medicare Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Provisions of Sec. 35(2AB) of Income Tax Act, nowhere suggest simply that R& D facility is approved from particular date and in other words, it is no where suggested that date of approval only will be cut off date for eligibility. The court further held that once facility […]
Where the assessee diverted borrowed funds towards investment in a company but did not collect any interest on money so invested then the AO was justified in making the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital particularly in view of the fact that the assessee failed to prove that there was any commercial expediency in making the investment that company.
Atul Dinesh Seth Vs ITO (ITAT Bnagalore) The contention of the A.R. is that once the income of the assessee estimated by applying the section 44AF of the Act, there cannot be any further addition for any lapse in the books of accounts. In these assessment years, except AY 2011-12, the turnover of the assessee is […]
Yokogawa India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bnagalore) Admittedly the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld.AO under section 143 (3) read with section 144C is in violation mandatory provisions under section 144C(10) and (13) of the Act by not passing the order in pursuance of and in conformity with the directions of DRP issued under […]
Smt. Anasuya Basi Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order had made addition of Rs.50,000 as unexplained cash credits in the bank account of the assessee. The said amount has been deposited in Karnataka Bank saving bank account on 07.04.2007 (cash deposit). Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had […]
