The High court agreed with the position taken by the appellate authorities that the security deposit did not constitute a loan since it was paid to the respondent in his capacity as the owner of the accommodation and in pursuance of a lease agreement. Further, the court agreed with the observation of the ITAT that the respondent did not get undue benefit / advantage as the terms of the lease were similar to the earlier agreement though he had not received the additional guarantee.
The assessee, a division of Technical Resources Prt. Ltd. Australia, had entered into contracts with Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. (RTIPL) for evaluation of coal deposits in Maharashtra and Orissa and for corresponding feasibility studies for transporting the same.
The assessee, an Australian company, set up a permanent establishment (PE) in India to render technical services for evaluation of coal deposits and conducting feasibility studies for transportation of iron ore. The AO accepted that the income was business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA
There is no such material referred to by the A.O. for making this addition and this addition was made by him on the basis of difference of alleged market price of the plot purchased by the assessee in January 1997 which was duly disclosed before the income tax department and no incriminating material is alleged to have been found in the course of search indicating that any extra payment in cash was made by the assessee on account of purchase of this plot. In the absence of any such material found in the course of search, no addition can be made in the course of block assessment on the basis of estimating of market price.
Established in September, 2001, IL Jin Electronics (I) Pvt. Ltd. (IL Jin/ Taxpayer) is engaged in the business of manufacturing & selling printed circuit boards for consumer durables. It commenced commercial production in January, 2002. During FY 2002-03, for its operations, the Taxpayer entered into various international transactions (See Note 1 below) with its AEs, with the bulk of international transactions being that of purchase of raw material.
Recently Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Valentine Maritime Mauritius Ltd (Taxpayer), [2010-TIOL-195-ITAT-MUM] held that the number of days relating to each of the contracts cannot be aggregated to determine the ‘duration test’, as the activities carried out therein are not inextricably interconnected or interdependent and do not form a coherent whole in conjunction with each other.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The reply of the assessee in response to show cause notice against levy of concealment penalty have already been reproduced in para 5 of this order. The relevant portion of statutory provisions regulating levy of concealment penalty are reproduced below for the sake of convenience: –
ACIT Vs. Kribhco (ITAT Delhi) – Terms ‘exempt income’ and ‘deduction from income’ are two different propositions and, therefore, where assessee’s income was not exempt under section 10 rather same was eligible for deduction under section 80P, assessee’s case was not hit by provisions of section 14A.
When the nature of transaction is such that the arm’s length price can be determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods and it need not to be determined by applying 2 or more methods, in such a situation even the price determined by applying only one of the most appropriate methods will become the arithmetical mean price.
Where a hospital engaged consulting doctors and provided them with consulting chambers with secretaries assistance and the fees collected from out-patients and paid to the consultants each day after deducting certain amount towards rent and secretarial assistance, it was not a case of payment of professional fee and neither s. 192 nor s. 194J was attracted and the hospital cannot be treated as assessee in default for not deducting tax from such payments.
