ITAT held that There is no time-limit prescribed for bringing the consideration of export into India under section 10AA. Admittedly, the consideration had been received in India, albeit subsequent to filing of the return by the assessee. However, merely because the consideration had been received after 6 months from the close of the financial year the deduction, cannot be denied to the assessee on the sum. Therefore, AO was directed to grant deduction to the assessee under section 10AA of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Power Plant Engineers Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is apparent that the persons deputed by the recipient of the income were not routine employees, but were highly qualified and technical employees who were providing the head and brain’ to the assessee company. It cannot be said to be the reimbursement of salary expenditure when […]
DCIT Vs Jhajjar Central Coop Bank Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the provision pertained to audit fee payable to the statutory auditor for the ensuing year. It was further submitted that the statutory audit has to be carried out by a CA Firm recommended by NABARD and the audit fee is also […]
Elektrobit Automotive GmbH AM Vs Deputy DIT (ITAT Delhi) It was held that license agreement as entered by the assessee itself points out the word royalty. Moreover, considering the facts of case, that license terms obliges the licensee to furnish to assessee monthly statement of supplied products to customers using his software and consequent raising […]
DCIT Vs Dia Vikas Capital Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) On going through the above details from the assessee’s ledger account, it is seen that sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- is a provision made on 31.12.2008 against the consultancy fees. Similarly there is another item of Rs. 84,50,000/- which is again a provision for consultancy fee. This […]
Whether the Indian subsidiary of the assessee constitutes Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India on account of ‘signing, networking, planning and negotiation of offshore supply contracts in India’? If yes, whether any profit is attributable to the same, and the quantum thereof?
ACIT Vs M/s. Lumax Automotive Systems Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee-company explained that it has closed down its Aurangabad unit due to heavy losses suffered by the assessee-company. The assessee-company in this year has declared loss of Rs.4.34 crores in the return of income and after making addition as well, the net taxable loss have […]
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued and served upon the assessee requiring him to furnish necessary details and documents along with supporting evidence.
ITAT held that the excess jewellery found in the case of assessee, his parents, his wife, their children and the HUF was very nominal, and was very much reasonable, keeping in mind the riches and high status and more customary practices.
Non-debiting of the expenditure in the books of account is not relevant for allowability of the same as long as the expenditure is really incurred and is deductible as per law
