It has categorically been explained by the assessee that it is not practically possible to give detailed party wise breakup of fees receipts since the assessee received his fees either directly from the clients or from the instructing advocates or CAs, if they have collected the amounts from the clients.
Even after amendment of the Trust Deed the main object of the trust was to promote education. Letting out was incidental and not the principle activity of the assessee trust.Thus carrying out such incidental activity and the income derived from it is used for the educational institute and not for any particular person & thus newly inserted proviso to section 2 (15) will apply only to entities.
The presumption is so compelling that comparatively a small amount of investment made by the assessee during the previous year period relevant to the assessment years 1999- 2000 and 2000-01 have grown into a very sizable amount ultimately yielding a fabulous sum of Rs. 1,41,08,484 which was used by the assessee for the purchase of the flat at Colaba.
The Hon’ble Bombay High court in the above cited case held that a consideration receivable by the transferor which is contingent on happening of a future event the outcome of which is uncertain and cannot be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Assessee submitted the documentary evidence to show that after purchasing the property there was a civil suit filed by the other parties and the assessee could not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed.
This appeal filed by the Revenue raises questions with regard to whether transfer pricing adjustment consequent to arriving at Arms Length Price(ALP) is required to be done only in respect of the international transactions or this adjustment is to be done in respect of all the business transactions of the assessee i.e. at the entity level.
Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years.
Bombay High Court held that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source in respect of payment made towards demurrage charges in cases where section 172 of the IT Act applies. The Revenue did not dispute in the present case that section 172 applied.
High Court held that as the issue of service of notices under sections 148, 142(1) and 143(2) are concerned, it is an admitted position that the said notices were never served on the Petitioner. The Revenue seeks to justify service of these notices on the Petitioner by contending that they have served the said notices on the last known address of the Petitioner which was the address of Ingram Micro India [earlier known as Tech Pacific India], the downstream company of the Petitioner.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd. vs. DCIT/Union of India that in the Judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.169/2014 dated 08.12.2015, it was held that before effecting deduction at source one of the aspects to be examined is whether such income is taxable in terms of the Income Tax Act.
