Consideration paid by assessee for services rendered by non-resident were purely in the nature of procurement services and could not be characterized as ‘managerial’, ‘technical’ or ‘consultancy’ services and thus, could not be classified as fee for technical services and accordingly, not liable for deduction of tax at source under section 195.
Since assessee had sufficient documentary evidences before AO to prove that money routed from assessee itself which came back to assessee in the form of share capital/premium and AO neither made any further enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by assessee nor verify the trail of the source of funds received by assessee through various entities thus, assessee had been able to prove that it had received genuine amounts which was routed through various companies.
Assessee in instant case had purchased three properties on three different dates. This indicated that assessee had purchased the land on piece meal basis. Since value mentioned in each sale deed was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, section 194-IA would not be applicable to assessee merely because the seller and Khasra number of the three properties was same.
Late Harbhajan Singh Makkar Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee had specifically asked for the cross-examination and if same was not given to the assessee, the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee, as denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witness whose statements were made the sole basis […]
DCIT (International Taxation) Vs Qliktech International AB (ITAT Delhi) Right to use granted through licensing of a software does not fall within the meaning of “Royalty” as provided for in the domestic law or the DTAA. Any consideration for the same is not taxable as Royally under section 9(1)(vi) or the relevant DTAA. Thus what […]
Where prior to completion of assessment, assessee had already reported its new address to revenue, but AO sent the notices to assessee at the old address, then assessee could not be held in default for not complying with notices under section 142(1)/(143(2).
Young Indian Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi has dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea to make Young Indian a charitable trust. Rejecting the application, the ITAT Delhi said that it is a commercial organization. With the rejection of the application, the income tax case of 100 crore rupees against him will open again. […]
Issuance of notice under section 143(2) on the very same day when return was filed showed non-application of mind on AO’s part in issuing section 143(2) notice and thereafter in framing assessment and therefore, all proceedings were nullity.
AO required assessee-company to prove genuineness of share capital along with premium received by it. Assessee furnished various evidences in that regard. However, AO made addition under section 68 on the ground that in response to summons under section 131 shareholder companies had not appeared for personal deposition.
ITO Vs Max Ventures Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) An addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act where during any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, which exceeds the amount recorded on this count in the […]
