: Where there existed reasonable cause for the assessee in accepting the loans in cash and particularly as the loans were repaid by way of RTGS, i.e., via banking channels, penalty levied by AO under section 271D was deleted.
ITAT held that the business receipts of the foreign residents are not taxable in India since the agents have no PE in India and therefore, the assessee was not required to make TDS u/s 195 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee’s appeals for all the three A.Ys are allowed.
Assessee having already set up its business was eligible to claim basic administrative expenditure as business expenditure though business operations were commenced in the subsequent year.
M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) (ITAT Hyderabad) We have perused the order of the Tribunal and find that in Para 8 of the order, the Tribunal has considered the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 201(1) also to 201(1A) and has clearly held that sub section (3) refers only to an […]
ITAT held that Stock- in-trade can be considered as transferred only in the year in which the assessee has executed the sale deed transferring the stock-in-trade and not when the assessee has given stock-in-trade for joint development to the builder. As already held in the above cases, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) would apply only to the capital asset and not to stock-in-trade.
Article 2(1) of the India-UAE DTAA provides that the taxes covered shall include tax and surcharge thereon. Education cess is nothing but an additional surcharge & is also covered by the definition of taxes.
Assessee was eligible to claim tax credit both federal as well as state taxes paid on the income earned during the year as section 91 did not discriminate between State and Federal taxes, and in effect provides for both the types of Income-taxes to be taken into account for the purpose of tax credits against Indian Income-tax liability.
Conclusion: Since assessee- AOP was a trust formed for the benefit of a sole beneficiary, therefore, applying individual tax rates to assessee-AOP was not a mistake apparent on the face of the record and therefore, it could not be rectified through Section 154.
In the matter f Issue of Share at High Premium AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing of benefit to the shareholders/directors. Hence ITAT remanded the matter back to AO to re-assess whether the assessee was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to the shareholder / director.
Explore the judgment by ITAT Hyderabad in Apna Incable Broad Band Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, addressing depreciation on network rights and technical service fee disallowance.
