ITAT Bangalore held that that the payment made by GIPL (Google India Pvt. Ltd.) to GIL (Google Ireland Limited) is not in the nature of Royalty or FTS under the Act. Accordingly, TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act not deductible.
The profit margin forgone by assessee could not be held to be expenditure in creating intangible or goodwill as there was no expenditure incurred by assessee except those that were set out in the profit and loss account and disallowing such expenditure by AO and consequently arriving at a positive total income chargeable to tax was without any basis and not in accordance with law.
ITAT Bangalore held that insurance charges incurred by the assesse are not attributable to delivery/ export of computer software outside India and hence cannot be included in export turnover.
ITAT Bangalore held that business of the assessee is to invest in shares and that the borrowing was for the purpose of business. Accordingly, interest paid on such borrowing is allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be allowed to be exercised by the PCIT either for substituting his own opinion for that of the AO or for making a fishing and roving enquiry.
ITAT Bangalore held that payment made towards service charges to CGTM France doesnot fall under the category of fees for technical service. Accordingly, TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act not deductible.
ITAT Bangalore held that for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is required to furnish necessary evidence proving construction of the residential building within the period as enumerated in section 54F of the Act. As assessee failed to produce the same, exemption u/s 54F not available.
ITAT Bangalore held that income from sale of developed flat, obtained under Joint Development Agreement (JDA), is to be treated as income from short term capital gain/ long term capital gain and not as income from business.
Lakshminarayana Gupta Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Bangalore) The solitary issue that is raised in this appeal is with regard to the disallowance of brokerage claim amounting to Rs.2,17,000/-. It is claimed that assessee had incurred brokerage of Rs. 3,10,000 regarding sale of a property. The assessee has not produced any proof/evidences to substantiate that he had […]
Decision of jurisdictional high court with jurisdiction over AO should be followed and applied by NFAC. Relief should not be refused to taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court.
