The Delhi Bench of the Income – tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Tribunal), in the case of Vertex Customer Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the taxpayer) held that exclusion of provision of doubtful debts from the operating expenses being a debatable issue and considering full disclosure made by the taxpayer; the taxpayer could not be held liable for penalty.
A T Kearney Ltd., UK (‘assessee’), a company engaged in the business of providing management consulting services, carried on its business operations in India through its branch office . The assessee deputed highly experienced personnel to train and develop the local expertise to provide services
The ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee by holding that the discount on stock options was notional in nature and was not deductible either in the year of grant or in the year when the option is exercised by the employees. In reaching the conclusion, the main consideration by the ITAT was the argument that the difference between market price and grant price is only a notional expenditure. Where ESOPs are granted by overseas parent companies and the difference between market price and grant price is charged to the Indian subsidiary, the allowability of expenditure would require further evaluation.
Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.
The taxpayer was a banking company. In the current appeal, the Revenue’s grievance was that the CIT(A) had erred in directing that the written back ”provision of bad-debts” was not taxable as ”business income” especial y when a deduction of a sum was already al owed under Section 36(1) (vi a). The AO in the assessment order held that such write off of the provision for bad and doubtful debts was allowed as deduction in the previous years and therefore the current write back should be taxable. The CIT(A), while deciding the case before him, held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, an amount of liability written back cannot be taxed as income.
The taxpayer was a wholly owned subsidiary of Denso Thermal Systems, Italy. The taxpayer was engaged in the business of manufacturing certain automobile products and selling the same in India and abroad. For the impugned assessment year, the taxpayer claimed that the royalty paid to its parent company as revenue expenditure. After perusing the details called for, the AO, relying on the decision of CIT vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd. 148 ITR 272 (Mad) held 25% of the royalty claimed as capital expenditure and disallowed the same.
(i) Mere identification of donor and showing movements of gift amount through banking channels is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift, (ii) Since the claim of the gift is made by the assessee, the onus lies on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to such a gift. The assessee has to prove that the money has actually been received as a gift from donor,
A plain reading of language used in the definition of `loan or deposit’ in section 269T clearly provides loan or deposit means any loan or deposit of any nature. Thus, there is no question of excluding current loan for the purpose of section 269T of the Act.
. In this case, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.06.1999 declaring total income at Rs. 15,77,534/-, wherein the arrears of rent was included while computing the income under the head “income from house property”. The A.O. processed the return of income u/s 143(1) at a returned total income of Rs. 15,77,534/-.
Section 271(1)(c) provides that if the AO or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner, in the course of proceedings in this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by a reason of the concealment of particulars of his income.
