On perusal of section 194J of the Act, we find that tax is deductible at source either at the time of credit of expenditure to the account of the payee or at the time of payment whichever is earlier. In the instant case, the assessee had made provision for audit fees to the account of the payee which fact has been mentioned by the ld CITA.
Renault India case: Just because assessee mentioned that marketing expenditure incurred by it helped promotion of Renault brand in India, it cannot be presumed that such expenditure resulted in any international transaction
Where investment in a new residential house was made within three years from date of transfer of assets, exemption Under section 54F could not be denied on the ground that unutilized amount was not deposited in Capital Gains Account Scheme before due date prescribed under section 139(1).
It is not in dispute that the assessee purchased MS Office software and used the same in its business. By purchasing MS Office software, the assessee has not become owner of the software. The ownership of MS Office software remained with Microsoft company.
By purchasing licence to use MS Office software assessee received enduring benefit in the course of earning of profit, however, it did not become owner of the software, therefore, licence fee could not be treated as capital expenditure.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai, on Wednesday, brought in further clarity to one of its previous orders regarding the inclusiveness of private open terrace in build-up area of a flat, for the purpose of deductions as per Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
Tribunal found that roaming charges cannot be considered as fee for technical services, therefore, the provisions of Section 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not applicable.
G. Narasiman Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) Belated return filed under section 139(4) could not be revised under section 139(5). Therefore, revised return filed by assessee was invalid and to frame assessment by considering such return as return filed under section 139(1) was in conflict with charging interest under section 234A for delay in filing of […]
Where original assessment order was subjected to revision under section 263, interest under section 234B would be charged till completion of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263.
A. Ramalingam Vs Income Tax officer (ITAT Chennai) The exemption claimed by the assessee under CBDT circular is only for seizure of gold jewellery during the course of search operation. As rightly submitted by the Ld. Departmental Representative, it does not absolve the assessee from explaining the source for acquisition of such jewellery. Therefore, the […]
