Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) OTS E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: From the perusal of the records it can be seen that OTS E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was held as not comparable in subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 by the Tribunal. The functional dissimilarity is apparent on record and there are no changes […]
Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Section 154(1A) lays down that rectification can be done for any matter other than the matter considered and decided in appeal/revision. Thus, whene any matter had been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision, rectification of such matter cannot be done by […]
DDIT Vs Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Learned DR contended that MIPL is economically dependent on assessee company as major revenue of MIPL is from assessee company. We are of the view that this per se cannot be ground to hold that MIPL is a Dependent Agent. For invoking this clause, first one of […]
Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) A conjointly reading of section 148 (1) of the Act with section 139 (4) of the Act and section 144 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act, if an assessee files a belated return or letter […]
Toyoda Micromatic Machinery India Private Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is a fact that the learned assessing officer has not challenged the order of the learned CIT – A stating that resale price method is the most appropriate method as assessee does not engage in any deemed manufacturing or further value addition. It is […]
Minimum guarantee amount which was paid by the distributor for acquiring the exhibition rights of a movie was a fixed expenditure for the distributor that was paid to producers irrespective of the fact whether the film generated a profit or incurs losses. Hence, the payments made by assessee did not fall under the term Royalty and did not attract the provisions of TDS.
Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ground number five of the appeal of treating the interest income from fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 2982000/- as income from other sources, we also do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities as assessee has merely placed fixed deposits with the […]
Usekiwi Infolabs Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The facts clearly shows that assessee has got an investment from Kstart LLC, Mauritius as a contribution towards issue of 20,000 compulsorily convertible preference shares having face value of ₹ 10 each at a premium of ₹ 827.50 per share. For this proposition the bank account of […]
It is not a case, where losses of non eligible unit or units are being set off against the profit of eligible unit. The issue whether section 10A is exemption provision deduction provision is of no relevance. Insofar as, carry forward of loss of unit eligible to deduction under section 10B is concerned the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2003 to subsection (6) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 specifically provide for carry forward of losses of 100% EOU.
Now the question is whether it should be reduced by the value as determined under section 50C of the act or actual money received by the assessee. The provisions of section 50C cannot be incorporated in the computation of block of the assets for the simple reason that it only substitutes the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer for the purposes of section 48 only.
