Receipts from sale of software cannot be treated as ‘royalty’ under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Ireland as payment had been made by assessee for use of copyrighted material rather than for the use of copyright in the computer software programme.
Disallowance under section 40A(3) with respect to cash payment made by assessee to farmers on Sunday for purchase of agricultural land could not be disallowed as Sunday was bank holiday and rule 6D(J) was clearly attracted in assessees case as payment was made due to commercial expediency.
When an assessee accepts the protective additions made in assessment order by not filing any appeal against it, the character of the additions changes from protective addition to substantive addition.
Order of reassessment passed without disposing off the objection raised by assessee was invalid as assessee was entitled to raise objection against the reason given in reassessment notice and AO was under mandate to dispose of the same by a speaking order before proceeding to reassess the assessee’s income.
Assessee provided details of deposits and source from where the deposits have been made in the bank account. Only the relevant parties were not presented to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the same cannot lead to concealment.
Limit of exemption of Rs. 50 lakh under section 194-IA(2) was applicable to each transferee separately as each transferee was a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed.
Bogus Capital gains- Order is against the principle of natural justice in as much as the order has been passed taking the statement of person as base, the copy of which is not made available to the assessee. Further, opportunity to cross examine the concerned person was also not provided to the assessee.
Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is true that noticed dated 21.11.2011 was for both the A.Ys i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, each A.Y is considered to be a separate unit and, therefore, for each A.Y, the Assessing Officer must bring out his case. A perusal of the said notice, […]
We do not have any hesitation is holding that when the addition is made solely on the basis of statement the third party and revenue does not have any other evidences, then without granting opportunity of cross examination , such addition cannot be made.
M/s Eni India Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) learned AO had taken a view that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC vs CIT & Anr. the nature of activities involved under the contract including the sale of services of HOEC are covered by the provisions of Section […]
