We are of the view that the company having occupied the property for its own purposes, no notional rent can be added. It may be germane to mention here that this is the only property owned and occupied by the assessee as its registered office. It is not the case of the AO that the assessee company was having some other premises to have its office. A company having been incorporated is legally required to have its registered office irrespective of the fact whether during the year it has carried on any activity or not.
The inability to meet the contractual obligation by the assessee cannot be termed as an offence or infraction of law so as to deny the claim of the assessee by invoking the expression 1 to sec 37(1) of the Act.
Where AO did not pass any speaking order in disposing of assessee|s objections against notice under section 148, the assessment order passed subsequent to such notice, would be considered as bad in law and hence, the same was liable to be quashed.
Shyam Bihari Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As regards addition of Rs. 20,38,472/- on account of payment of interest to bank which the assessee has mentioned in the profit and loss account. The revenue authorities have noticed that a loan (liability) of Rs. 1,11,73,554/- against which the assessee has claimed interest of Rs. 20,38,472/- and […]
M/s. Bhardwaj Construction Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) As regards to Ground Nos. 11 and 12, relating to disallowance on account of depreciation claimed at Rs. 33,726/- on Cars, the Ld. AR submitted that this disallowance is without any basis. The Ld. AR further submitted that the vehicles have been used for business purposes and […]
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 […]
