Siddhi Vinayak Aeromatics (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case Assessee had filed complete details as required during assessment proceedings and after complete verification of the details assessment was framed by AO under section 153/143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. AO had not produced any tangible material that there was failure on the […]
Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In this case ITAT explains Law on whether share capital/ share premium received by a Company from investors can be assessed as ‘unexplained cash credit’ in the light of judgements of the Courts and Tribunal. In the case in hand Considering the facts of the case, in […]
Virvati Devi Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that possession of the property in question was not transferred at the time of Agreement to Sale. After the Agreement to Sale the SDM vide order dated 26.02.2009 changed the land use and declared the land as non- agricultural. The sale deed dated 24.03.2009 was […]
Loesche India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The record reveals that the assessee had paid the insurance premiums of the employees’ family members in terms of employment Rules framed by the assessee-company there for. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the impugned expenditure were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose […]
Assessee has failed to disclose the identity of the recipient of gifts either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) has also examined the records and found that the assessee also failed to establish the business exigencies of the appellant vis-a-vis the aforesaid gifts.
Where assessee made payment of commission to non-residents outside India for procuring export orders, income of non-resident agents could not be considered to accrue or arise in India and therefore, there was no liability of assessee to deduct tax at source.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that no penalty can be initiated against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a bonafide mistake committed on the part of the Chartered Accountant.
CIT Vs Sinochem India co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The purchase of intellectual property rights by the assess are not disputed. Consideration paid is also not disputed. The nature and character of the intellectual property rights, as noticed in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), are again not disputed. The intellectual […]
Onus is heavily upon the revenue to establish that that assessee’s activity had crossed the threshold period of 12 months and hence constitutes PE in India in terms of Article 5(2)(g) so as to tax the receipts in India as per Article 7.
Discount on prepaid products offered to distributors by assessee engaged in telecom services was in the nature of commission which did attract of section 194H.
