Commission paid to non-resident agent was not liable to tax under the provisions of act when the services were rendered outside India, payments were made outside India and there was no permanent establishment or business connection in India, therefore, assessee was not required to deduct TDS u/s 195(2).
ACIT Vs M/s. Bansal Ship Breakers P. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) Any person responsible for collecting taxes (TCS) under section 206(1) need not to do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for re-use in manufacturing process or producing article or things. It does not say that such […]
Assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section 54F on gain earned on the sale of factory shed as factory shed inherently being long-term capital asset as per the provision of Section 2(42A) even if sale of factory shed was subject to short-term capital gain on the basis of deeming provision as specified under section 50.
Shri Hitesh H Budhbhatti Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The allowability of interest expenditure on borrowed capital for purchase of residential house under s.24 of the Act is in question. As per Section 23(2) of the Act, the gross annual value of the residential house shall be taken at ‘nil’ where such house is in the […]
Payment to the film distributors is not subject to TDS and therefore disallowing expense by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) is not justified
Income from purchase and sale of shares was liable to be taxed under the capital gain instead of income under the head business and profession as the frequency, magnitude of transaction in a systematic manner could not be the criteria to hold that assessee was engaged in the business activity of shares.
Provision for interest liability which was accrued but not provided for in books of account would be deductible under section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F for the amount invested beyond the prescribed period but before getting the property registered since there was sufficient reason, beyond the control of the assessee, which prevented the assessee from making investment within prescribed time.
Assessee was not liable for penalty under section 271D and 271E for availing cash loans/deposits in violation of section 269SS and 269T as it had availed the facility in order to re-establish itself, and for fulfilment of promises given for the purpose of BIFR which was a reasonable cause foe not levying penalty.
Though vehicles were registered in the name of directors of company, beneficial ownership vested with assessee since payment was made for the purchase of vehicles by the assessee. Thus, assessee was duly entitled for depreciation thereon, especially when assessee had claimed other expenses in connection with vehicle and non-disallowance thereof proved use of vehicles for assessee’s business purpose.
