Where assessee-society was engaged in activity of finance business and was also engaged in activity of granting loans to general public as well, it could not be termed as co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its members, hence assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80P.
Assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 54F in respect of the investment made by assessee in purchasing the capital asset (land) as the said purchase of land was not within a period of one year prior to the sale of capital asset or falling in any of the categories in which assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s.54F.
Assessee submitted that they have not received any carbon credit during the year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13. Assessee submitted that addition made by AO on account of non-existence income ought to be deleted.
M/s. Google India Private Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Bangalore) After considering the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, relative hardship, the earlier orders of the Tribunal and the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of the Assessee on identical issue of grant of stay, the offer to pay […]
Google Ireland taxable in India for the advertisements directly placed by the advertisers under AdWord Program as the same constitute business profits.
Gain arising on transfer of ESOP options should be taxed as long term capital gains where the holding period was more than 3 years as assessee acquired a valuable and transferable right and the right of share constituted capital assets from the date of grant.
The issue under consideration is whether under block of assets, the depreciation allowed even for those assets which have not been used during the year under consideration?
Learned DR submitted that the AO has failed to examine the claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings as required by the law. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the revision order passed by the learned CIT does not call for any interference.
Shri Rama Jogi Reddy Sanepalli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Ratnakanta B. Agarwal v. ITO, ITA 587/PUN/2014, order dated 24.07.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Pune Bench took the view that if the variance between the value estimated as fair market value by the DVO and the value adopted by the […]
Payment to non-resident towards purchase of advertisement space for resale to advertisers in India constituted ‘Royalty’ under section 9(1)(vi) and assessee was under an obligation to withhold tax under section 195.
