ITAT Delhi held that the renovation made by the assessee company is in the nature of permanent structure by way of Brick Wall partitions, panelling of Aluminium , Flooring etc. which cannot be covered under current repairs as provided in s. 30 of IT Act, 1961.
ITAT Held that Section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 cannot be invoked, where no regular activities were undertaken by the Assessee in respect of the investments to earn exempt income and no change in the investments during the year?
From the working submitted by the Appellant, it is evident that the value of each share is worked out at Rs. 40,616/-. Thus, apparently, higher share premium of Rs. 39,900/- is justifiable because of limited number of shares of the assessee company who are actual owner of assets of worth more than Rs. 60 crores.
Merely because of the fact that assessee is a CEO of a multinational company mistake cannot be treated as false because in case of a person holding senior position such like mistake oftenly crept in as invariably person holding high position use to delegate the computation work to file the return of income to a Chartered Accountant
The ITAT Delhi in the above cited case held that the need , rendition and benefit test for services availed by the assessee from associated enterprises should be applied having regard to the assessee’s business and not in a generic manner. TPO should have given due thought to the requirements ,benefits and manner of rendition of services by AEs before jumping to the conclusion that
Undisputedly the AO has not made assessment on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 rather proceeded u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of some pre-search enquiries to make an addition
In case, the owner of a brand name allows its usage to another entity, then a fee is recovered as a mode of compensation which is generally known as brand royalty.
Deduction u/s 80HH of the Act in respect of profit and gains from newly established industrial undertaking in backward areas would be given subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as provided in sub section (2) of the said provision. In the case in hand it is not the case of the AO that the assessee […]
The assessee had applied tax rate of 10% in the terms of the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, the AO has applied tax rate of 20% as the proviso below section 112(1)(c) was not applicable in the case of non-residents.
While the CIT may have proceeded on the basis that the reopening of the assessment was valid, this does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior to the reopening of the assessment, the AO has to, applying his mind to the materials, conclude that he has reason to believe that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment.
