AO is also equally responsible to find out whether the credit entry found on 01.07.2010 is genuine or not. The AO cannot take advantage of the ignorance or handicap of the assessee and say that there was undisclosed receipt by the assessee.
Assessee submitted that project receipt from Tanakpur Power Project of NHPC work is exempt from tax in India for the reason that assessee does not have continuous presence or ‘business connection’ or a permanent establishment in India.
Assessee had not invested in Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date under section 139(1) but complied with the conditions under section 54F(1). The provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally on the aspect of limitation period. However the investment in residential property is a must which the assessee had complied with evidence.
Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 28.3.2013. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in the guise of exercising his power u/s 263 of the Act, issued show cause notice calling for the objection of the assessee.
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case held that investment in share capital of a subsidiary being an international transaction on capital account does not result in income as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing provisions a would not be applicable to such transaction. Further, in the absence of thin capitalization rules, re-characterization of debt capital into equity or vice versa not allowed.
ITAT Chennai held In the case of The ACIT vs. Shri. B. Dhanasekaran that the enterprises carrying on development of the infrastructure facilities should be owned by a company or consortium of companies.
ITAT Chennai held in The ACIT Vs M/s Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd that if the agricultural land purchased by the assessee was not with an adventure in the nature of trade then that agricultural land could not be treated as a capital asset and liable for capital gain.
M/s Srivathsa Industries, Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in manufacturing leather and leather garments. In order to market its product in foreign countries, the assessee engaged agents and paid commission to them.
The ITAT Chennai held that payments made by the assessee in the nature of webhosting and marketing expenses to US based service provider could not be taxed as Fees for technology services because there were not transfer of technology involved in render of services such that the services could be continuously used by the Indian company without recourse to the service provider.
ITAT Chennai held In the case of The ACIT vs. M/s. Trimex Industries (P) Ltd that payment of interest which has direct link or immediate nexus with the trading liability being connected with the purchase payment
