It is not disputed that the petitioner as a marine engineer had rendered services outside India for the period of 286 days. He has received his remuneration for such work from a foreign company. Consequently, the income received by the petitioner for services rendered outside India has to be considered as income received out of India and treated as such.
Section 92CA(1) does not contemplate that the assessing officer has to first come to a definite finding that there is an international transaction within the meaning of Sec. 92B before he can exercise his power to refer the matter to the TPO.
The compensation was paid because the assessee had failed to install the pollution control device within the time prescribed. Therefore, payment of the sum of Rs.12,50,000/- is not hit by Explanation-1 to Section 37 of the Act. The Hon’ble judges of the Kolkata High Court by setting aside the orders of ITAT held that payment was und
The petitioner is a cricketer and is a former captain of the Indian Cricket Team. He participated in the IPL Cricket tournament held in India as a member of the Kolkata Knight Rider Team. At all material times he acted and still acts as brand ambassador for various products. He also acted as anchor in […]
Calcutta High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that clause 244A (1) (b) is residual in nature which prescribes interest on refund from the date of payment of tax in cases which are not covered by Section 244A (1) (a). Necessarily, it will cover interest on refund of excess self-assessment tax paid by the assessee.
The petitioner is a designated Senior Advocate practising in this Court and challenges notifications bearing nos. 9/2016 and 18/2016, both dated March 1, 2016, seeking to amend previous notifications of June 30, 2012 pertaining to service tax.
HC held that application software is an aid in the business operations rather than the tool itself. Therefore, the payment for such application software, though there is an enduring benefit, does not result in acquisition of any capital asset and it merely enhances the productivity or efficiency and hence, has to be treated as revenue expenditure.
The Bombay High Court held that the monthly alimony amounted to taxable income in the hands of the assessee. However, the lump sum alimony was in the nature of capital receipt.
Once it is clear that the assessee had correctly debited the profit and loss account for the loss arising out of the transfer of investment division, there remains no difficulty in realizing that the CIT proceeded on a wrong premise which was responsible for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 which he would not have done if he had realized the correct position.
scope of section 154 does not extend to a debatable issue and hence the assessing officer in exercise of power u/s 154 could not have withdrawn the interest u/s 244A(1)(b) on the refund of excess self assessment tax.
