Surana Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 69C by considering the purchases as Bogus Purchase is justified in law? ITAT states that, in present case, the assessee has shown sales of the goods, or otherwise the goods are lying in the closing stock. If […]
Issue was as regards imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance by assessee with respect to statutory notices issued under section 142(1), when assessment was completed under section 143(3).
The issue under consideration is whether AO is correct in invoking section 50C where no reference to valuation officer despite being request made by assessee?
Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that operation of Explanation 7 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act is prospective, since it has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 and made effective from 01.04.2016 and, therefore, not applicable in the year under consideration.
DCIT Vs Infrasoft Technologies Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, during the year under assessment, the assessee has acquired certain business interest from M/s. KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.19,02,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.6,52,80,577/- and Rs.10,89,60,000/- has been shown as goodwill and customer contract respectively. It is also not in dispute […]
ACIT Vs Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The AO asked the assessee to explain why Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd (MIPL) should not be treated Dependant Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) in India and also why the assessment should not be completed as per the preceding assessment year since the facts remain the same. Rejecting the […]
Since distributor of the products did not have any right to change the content hence, the revenue derived on account of distribution of the products was business income and under no circumstance, could be held to be royalty. Assessee had already offered income as business income in terms of the MAP, therefore, the income as declared by assessee in accordance with the MAP and accepted by the Department in the earlier years had to be accepted.
MUFG Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Delhi) With respect to the addition on account of the interest received by Indian branches from head office and other overseas branches amounting to ₹ 3,499,476/–. During the year , assessee has received an interest of ₹ 3,499,476 from its head office and overseas branches. The assessee […]
Smt. Monika Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the additional claim (section 54 exemption Claim) will be allowed to be presented in front of appellate authorities? ITAT states that, the Assessing Officer has been barred from accepting any new claims, but no such bar has been imposed on the appellate […]
Income received on providing bandwidth services outside India was not taxable as ‘Royalty’ under India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as mere receipt of service using equipment under the control, possession and operation of service provider would only be considered as transaction of a service and not to ‘use or right to use’ an equipment, and would not attract ‘Royalty’ under the Act or the Tax Treaty.
