In the event and income sourced in India was not characterized under the heads provided in the DTAA, the income would be taxable under the residual clause provided taxing right was allocated to source country in this case to India under the relevant DTAA.
Denial of the entire expenditure incurred towards as cost of construction by AO could not be held to be justified even if assessee did not submit satisfactory bills/vouchers in support of her claim towards the cost of construction.
Hire charges of a vessel did not constitute ‘Royalty’ as it was in the nature of business income and as there was no Permanent Establishment therefore, no taxability arose on account of business income.
It is the case of the assessee that it has not been provided with the opportunity of being heard before the Ld. AO/CPC, Bangalore while passing an order under Section 154/153(1) and additions were made due to inadvertent mistake of the tax auditor in both the employer and employee’s contributions. Actual due date of the salary should have been verified by the CPC/A.O.
In a recent ruling ITAT Delhi relied upon the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Subros Educational Society, (2018) 96 taxmann.com 652 (SC) in deciding that the set off of accumulated deficit is allowable.
Assessee was a medical professional, filed his returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The appeal concerned an addition of over Rs. 179 crore made by AO under section 68 alleging unexplained cash credits in the assessee’s hands.
The notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee, along with the notice reasons recorded for reopening assessment were also supplied to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that order passed u/s. 148A(d) is non-speaking since AO failed to provide adequate counter explanation against reasons furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, assessment u/s. 147 non-est and void ab initio.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act based on presumptions and concept of human probability without bringing on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry is not sustainable.
AO had made the addition with the observation that no response was received from assessee. Based on that, he proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 based on the information available on his record.
