Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation-2 to section 263 inserted by Finance […]
Commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders could not be treated as income taxable in India when parameters of DTAAs were applied to transactions in question. Also non-resident agents did not have PE or business connection in India. Therefore, impugned payment could not be held as taxable in the hands of non-resident agents in India and, therefore, liability to withhold tax under section 195 did not arise.
If a company is having huge asset base, brand value, goodwill and presence in global market with significant R & D, then it cannot be compared with a company which is purely captive service provider in ITeS/BPO, having low risk and insignificant assets.
DCIT Vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, the appellant has shifted its global depository receipt exchange from AIM London stock exchange to the main market London stock exchange without increasing any capital but to provide a bigger platform to global depository receipt holders to trade their holding. The learned […]
In the present case the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by only mentioning in Column No. 12 ‘YES’, in the Reasons for Initiating Proceedings u/s. 147 and For obtaining the Approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax. On this count the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed.
Assessee who was Resident but not ordinarily resident in India was entitled to claim the credit of both state and federal taxes as per section 91 however, tax credit in respect of foreign income tax was restricted to actual income tax liability in India, in respect of income on which taxes had been so paid abroad.
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was allowable in case money was unable to be recovered due to inability or insolvency of the debtor to pay. In all other cases, the claim for allowance should have to be sustained under Section 37(1) which required that the expenditure (not being of a capital nature) should have been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the business. Advances for salary and deposits for lease premises had been written off and the same were laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business thus, allowable under Section 37(1).
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.
