Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case apparently, AE has not provided any capital to the appellant on which income is earned. It is a corporate guarantee , being a surety to the lender bank of the appellant that, if in a case, in future, the appellant fails to […]
Transactions carried out through current account for business purposes would not fall within the definition of Deemed Dividend. Therefore provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, would not apply.
Muradul Haque Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench of the […]
Whether the disallowance of Interest u/s 36(1)(iii) is justified in law? If interest free funds available it presumed that Investments made from that available funds.
The issue under consideration whether conversion of the case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny is justified in law?
Deepak Bhardwaj Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Only question that arises for our consideration is whether the unutilised portion of capital gains is liable for tax either in the year in which such long term capital gains arose or in the year in which the period of 3 years for such utilisation expires. Under identical facts […]
SPX India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) Tax was required to be deducted at source on share of ISO audit expenses paid to foreign parent company, as element of income was embedded in receipt of auditor. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT Assessee is in appeal before us against the order of ld. CIT […]
Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee made payment for link charges to telecom service providers in the USA and cross-charged the portion of the cost incurred by it in connection with the India half link to CIS, which was accordingly reimbursed by CIS to assessee. The assessee has merely procured […]
AMP expenditure of assessee did not have a direct bearing on the promotion of brands of its AEs as the issue stood decided in favour of assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years i.e., A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09.
The issue under consideration is that Whether the receipts of the assessees from transponder is royalty under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether it is taxable?
