Whether the usage of foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) brand name on the cars manufactured and sold by the tax payer amounted to rendering of brand promotion service, and whether it constituted an international transaction under section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act).
The first question that we need to decide is whether the benefit accruing to the HMC Korea, as a result of increased brand value due to sale of Hyundai cars in India by the assessee company, constitutes an international transaction.
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee claim for its exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short BC the Act CC). Appeal has been filed with a delay of ten days. Condonation petition has been filed. Delay is condoned and appeal admitted.
An ‘individual’ and an ‘HUF’ are different persons under the Income Tax Act, and notice to one cannot be deemed as notice to the other.
Recently, in DCIT vs. Ford India Limited & vice-versa[I.T.A. Nos. 673 and 840 /Chny/2015 and I.T.A. Nos. 748 and 749 /Chny/2015, A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, decided on 31.01.2017], one of the question raised before ITAT, Chennai was whether CIT(A) erred in deleting the tax
Shri K. Balasubramanian, the learned representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee HUF, sold 122.840 carat of diamonds on 2-1-2012 for a total consideration of Rs. 57,12,060. The long-term capital gain computed at Rs. 42,65,619. According to the learned representative, there was no dispute about sale of diamonds and the computation of long-term capital gain at Rs. 42,65,619.
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Chennai dated 15.09.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13.
Dr. S. Muthian Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Sec.143(3) of the Act contemplates two methods of assessment being made vis-a -vis a return filed by an assessee. Wherever, the AO wants to scrutinise the return of income, he has to issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act so as to complete the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. […]
Assessee will be entitled for benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of Act if he demolished new asset being residential house purchased by him within period of three years from the date of purchase in violation to Section 54F(3) of Act.
First requirement to claim of additional depreciation is that there should a new machinery or plant. A machinery is new till it is first put to use. Once it is used, it is no longer a new machinery. Admittedly, the machinery, on which additional depreciation has been claimed, was already used in various preceding previous […]
