These two appeals are by the assessees against the respective orders of the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad dated 29.07.2016. Even though many issues are contested, mainly the issue pertain to whether the income offered by the assessee has to be assessed under capital gains or under ‘other sources.
ITAT Hyderabad has held in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Lanco Infratech Limited held that Mobilisation/ trade advance has been wrongly treated as trade receivable. It is not to be subjected to TP. It cannot be re-characterised as receivables. Moreover, advances given as part of contract work does not require any special addition, when […]
In assessee’s case, the bank is not even a member of the society. The nature of the transaction between the assessee and the bank would disqualify application of the principle of mutuality. Therefore, the transactions with the bank who is not even a member of the society cannot be considered as a transaction for which […]
It is not uncommon that village elders intervene and settle the land disputes to safeguard the law and order and protect the peaceful atmosphere of the village.
The Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Collection of donation by Educational Institution/ Society is not ‘Capitation Fee.
Assessee has taken all the necessary steps to facilitate the building of Metro Rail System. Since the assessee has taken steps in furtherance of its main objects, it cannot be stated that the assessee has not commenced its business.
The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) on total income including the income received from lease rental on open yard. The A.O. observed that since open yard is not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of Section 80IA(4) of the Act,
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a concern which is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 10A of the Act and therefore, all of its income is exempt from tax in India and hence there is no intention to shift its profit outside India and more so, when the tax rates in USA, where the AEs are located, is higher than in India.
By section 254(4) of the IT Act, an order which has been passed by the Tribunal reaches finality the moment the same is passed: it cannot be touched thereafter. By section 254(2) of the act, the Tribunal, however, has been authorized to rectify mistakes in its orders, which are apparent on the face of the records.
Assessee cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers.
