Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) To recapitulate, the DDT is levy on the dividend distributed by the payer company, being an additional tax is covered by the definition of ‘Tax’ as defined u/s 2(43) of the Act which is covered by the charging section 4 of the Act and charging […]
Mahalaxmi Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find, the AO, in the instant case, has made addition of Rs.17,15,113/- for assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.30 lacs for assessment year 2010-11 in the orders passed u/s 153A r.w. section 143(3). A perusal of the assessment order shows that the addition of Rs.16,77,983/- out […]
DCIT Vs Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer has held that the cost of the purchase consideration over the tangible assets is to be treated as payment for the non-compete fees as there was no goodwill with the seller and creation of the goodwill is misleading. The aforesaid finding is based […]
The issue under consideration is whether the funds raised from buy back of FCCB at discounting rate is considered as business income and tax u/s 28 of the Income Tax Act?
The issue under consideration is whether the activities involved towards promotion of handloom sector is eligible for exemption under section 11 and 12 of Income Tax Act?
DLF Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Deduction of Rs. 1.78 Billion in respect of profits derived on account of development considerations of bare shells would constitute profits and gains derived from business of developing any Special Economic Zone within the meaning of Section 80 IAB and was allowable to DLF Limited. Held: Assessee-company was […]
In this case, since there was a Family Settlement between the assessee and three brothers and they have acted upon Family Settlement Deed and distributed various properties among themselves and necessary rights and title are transferred in favour of each brother would show that parties have entered into genuine transaction.
Parag Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition of Rs. 2,70,000/- on account of unexplained jewellery. It is the contention of the learned AR that if the correct quantity of jewellary (i.e. 671.53 gms is considered instead of 771.83 gms) and if the credit for jewellery […]
Benchmarking of cost to cost reimbursement of expenses was not within the jurisdiction of the TPO while computing the arm’s length price of the international transaction u/s 92CA of the Act.
Approach of the learned transfer pricing officer of determining ALP of international transaction of incurring of higher AMP expenditure cannot be benchmarked either on Bright line test bases or on transactional net margin method unless first it is established that there existed an international transaction. Accordingly all the grounds of the appeal of the assessee relating to the transfer pricing adjustment are allowed.
