In the present case As assessee had established nexus of interest expenses with its main activity of financing and there was not a single amount of interest bearing borrowings which could be related with investment which yielded tax-free dividend income, no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for. AO was directed to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at the rate of 0.5% of investments which actually have resulted in the exempt dividend income.
The Nainital Bank Ltd. Vs Asstt. (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee furnished all the facts and figures including the earning of the tax free income and the expenditure which was accepted by the learned AO, it is not open for the AO to say that the income escaped assessment because assessee did not reveal the […]
That the Commissioner (Appeals) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, grossly erred on facts and in law in observing that the surrender made by the assessee is not in course of the statement recorded under section 132(4) and hence section 271 AAA benefit cannot be granted to the appellant.
Minda SM Technocast Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 1. In the present case, the assessee has acquired shares of TEPL at Rs.5 per shares. The shares were acquired by the assessee from three companies as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The assessee claimed to have valued the shares of TEPL as per the provisions […]
A.O. noted that the deduction under section 80IC is to be allowed on the profits derived from eligible business. The interest earned on the FDRs cannot be said that interest income earned from manufacturing activities of the assessee. It can only be said that interest income on FDRs is attributable to business activities but cannot be said that it derived from manufacturing activity of the assessee.
ITAT held that There is no time-limit prescribed for bringing the consideration of export into India under section 10AA. Admittedly, the consideration had been received in India, albeit subsequent to filing of the return by the assessee. However, merely because the consideration had been received after 6 months from the close of the financial year the deduction, cannot be denied to the assessee on the sum. Therefore, AO was directed to grant deduction to the assessee under section 10AA of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Power Plant Engineers Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is apparent that the persons deputed by the recipient of the income were not routine employees, but were highly qualified and technical employees who were providing the head and brain’ to the assessee company. It cannot be said to be the reimbursement of salary expenditure when […]
DCIT Vs Jhajjar Central Coop Bank Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the provision pertained to audit fee payable to the statutory auditor for the ensuing year. It was further submitted that the statutory audit has to be carried out by a CA Firm recommended by NABARD and the audit fee is also […]
Elektrobit Automotive GmbH AM Vs Deputy DIT (ITAT Delhi) It was held that license agreement as entered by the assessee itself points out the word royalty. Moreover, considering the facts of case, that license terms obliges the licensee to furnish to assessee monthly statement of supplied products to customers using his software and consequent raising […]
DCIT Vs Dia Vikas Capital Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) On going through the above details from the assessee’s ledger account, it is seen that sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- is a provision made on 31.12.2008 against the consultancy fees. Similarly there is another item of Rs. 84,50,000/- which is again a provision for consultancy fee. This […]
