It is an admitted position that the assessee treated the amount of subsidy as a capital receipt, but, did not reduce it from the value of fixed assets and eventually claimed depreciation on the higher value of assets without reduction of such subsidy. To deal with such a situation, the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1-4-2016, […]
Deduction u/s 54 of the Act is also available even if the land, which was appurtenant to the residential house, is sold and it is not necessary that the whole of the residential house should be sold because the legislature has used the words or which is distinctive in nature.
ITAT held that that the payment made by the assessee to ICC amounting to Rs. 4.56 crore as `Rights fee’ is not in the nature of `Royalty’ or `Fees for technical services’ covered u/s 9(1)(vi) or 9(1(vii) of the Act and as such the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on this payment. Ex consequenti, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) are not attracted.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. To put the facts very simply in a narrow compass , the assessee company is a tax resident of United Kingdom which was incorporated on 26th of June 2006. On 30/06/2006
Construction expenses not recorded in books of account, cannot be a ground for assessing rental income under the head income from other sources when conditions of Section 22 of Act for assessing annual value of property have been fulfilled by assessee.
Since TIPS were received from customers and not from employer these would be chargeable in the hands of employee as income from other sources and section 192 would not get attracted on facts of case.
Foreign exchange fluctuation loss cannot be called notional loss since the fall in the exchange rate has already taken place in the accounting year. Accounting Standards-11 provides that the entire amount of liabilities outstanding as at the balance sheet date should be restated and the loss should be charged to the Profit and Loss account of each year.
In a big relied to Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Yogpeeth, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed exemption status under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
Invocation of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act to deny claim of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, grounds of appeal are allowed
From the proviso, it is evident that where the tax payable in respect of the transfer of a long term capital asset in the case of a listed company exceeds 10% of the amount of the capital gain before giving effect to the provisions of second proviso to Section 48, then such excess shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the tax payable by the assessee.
