Payments made by assessee towards toll-free telephone charges is royalty, in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, and is liable to deduct TDS under section 194J of the Act. We therefore are in agreement with the view taken by Ld.CIT (A).
The issue under consideration is that whether deduction u/s 80-IC will be allowed against service charges since services rendered were part of business and also involved manufacturing activity?
The issue under consideration is whether deduction under section 80IAB will be allowed against the income of lease/ rental income from development of SEZ irrespective of wrong classification of head of income.
The issue under consideration is whether land sold by assessee engaged in property development taxable as capital gains or business income?
Exclusion of comparables from the list of comparables on basis of turnover, functional difference for determination of Arms Length Price was valid.
Harina Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is that whether the loan received from two directors can be considered as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act? In the given case, the assessee has received amount from two of its directors. The assessee could file only ledger account extract […]
Akshaya Souharda Credit Cooperative Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in re-opening of assessment based on the same material on which he relied at the time of assessment u/s 143(3)? The assessee is a co-operative engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its […]
The issue under consideration is whether the rental income earned by the assessee is taxable under the head “Income from House Property” as claimed by the assessee in the return of income or under the head “Income from Business” as held by the AO in the assessment order.
The Agreement refers to the US parent company of the Assessee having acquired license to use EDA tools from the vendors and the right of the Assessee to use the same and the fact that billing will be done on the Assessee on the basis of actual use of the software by the Assessee. It is thus clear that the Assessee had acquired no right or interest whatsoever in the EDA tools and had only a right to use the software. It is not the case of the revenue that the EDA tools was not connected to the business of the Assessee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the deduction was rightly allowed by the CIT(A) as revenue expenditure.
Provision for warrant expenses was not contingent and had to be allowed as deduction while computing income under the head Income from Business & Profession. Thus, the addition made to the book profits under section 115JB was to be deleted because the liability could not be said to be contingent.
