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.
Recently ITAT-SB at Hyderabad in Nagarjuna’s case held that even if a non resident does not obtain a PAN, the tax deductor need not deduct TDS at higher rate of 20%.
ITAT have consistently held that the internet charges have to be excluded both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Though the assessee is the sole owner of the property, he has included his wife and son as co-owners in the sale deed only to avoid succession problems in future and that they were also included as co-obligants in the loan agreement on insistence by the SBI to avoid legal litigation in future.
TDS rates are fixed on the basis of nature of the services or contract and not on the basis of the number of recipients of the payment. When the intention of both the parties is clear that the payments shall be made for each of the service independently, then, the services are clearly ascertainable and divisible. The TDS rates for each of the services would therefore vary.
AO failed to appreciate that company is an independent entity and distinct person. The action of the company will not have any bearing on the shareholders. AO has no jurisdiction to charge anything in the case of assessee over the dealings of any other person.
Business of the assessee is carried on in the leased property and any expenditure is incurred on the construction of any structure by way of renovation, extension or improvement, then, section 32 will apply and accordingly, the assessee can claim depreciation on the value spent on such improvement or changes in the structure.
Where a residential house was transferred and four flats in a single residential complex were purchased by the assessee, it was held that all four residential flats constituted “a residential house” for the purpose of Section 54 and that the four residential flats cannot be construed as four residential houses for the purpose of Section 54.
Client acquisition cost paid by the appellant was towards acquiring an intangible asset and therefore eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act @ 25%.
Assessee inter alia contended that the consideration was received as per the settlement agreement and vetted by Tomlin order of the Court of U.K. in consideration of restraining the assessee from the use of the name ‘Longman’ and as such, it is a capital receipt not liable to tax at all.
