Admittedly, the facts of the year under consideration and assessment year 2004-05 are identical. In AY 2004-05, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on certain assets while in the year under consideration, he disallowed the depreciation on all the assets. In our opinion, when the facts are identical, the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking a view inconsistent with the view taken by the Department in AY 2004-05.
U/s 9(1)(vi)(c) royalty payable by a person who is a non-resident is deemed to arise in India where the royalty is payable in respect of any right etc utilised for the purposes of a business carried on by such person in India or for the purposes of earning any income from any source in India. Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is a deeming provision and the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the payer has a business/ source of income in India. What is important for Section 9(1)(vi)(c) is not whether the right to property is used “in” or “for the purpose of” a business, but to determine whether such business is “carried on by such person in India”;
During the assessment year 2006-07 in question in the provisions laid down u/s 32(i)(iia) there was specific condition alongwith installation of new plant or machinery after 31st March, 2005 that the new plant or machinery must also be acquired after 31st March, 2005.
Transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee for creating or improving the marketing intangible for and on behalf of the foreign Associated Enterprises is permissible.
Having gone through the orders of the authorities below we find that the claim of the assessee that the building in question was purchased by it and was in use for the purpose of its business was not denied by the AO. The AO has disallowed the claimed depreciation only on the basis that the building was yet to be registered in the name of the assessee company.
From the proviso to Section 92C(4), it is evident that no deduction in Chapter VI-A is to be allowed in respect of the income which is enhanced after the computation of income in the said Section. Thus, the assessee is not entitled for deduction under Chapter VI-A in respect of the addition made as per the TPO’s order.
Explore how Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholds consistency in mobilization advance treatment, referencing an accepted accounting method and legal precedent.
The proviso to sub-section (1) to section 209, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 is prospective in nature and not with retrospective effect. The proviso was brought into operation with effect from 1-4-2012, therefore, the assertion of revenue is disagreed with. Even otherwise, the language used in section 209(1) is regarding payment of advance tax in the financial year, therefore, the proviso is not attracted for the impugned assessment year.
A bare look at section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with rectification, makes it amply clear that a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended.
We find that society is running the school under the management of receiver appointed by Hon’ble High Court. For the entire years the income of the school was exempt and for the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee had obtained prior approval of CCIT, Panchkulla for exemption u/s 10(23)(vi).
