ITAT Chennai held that as per Sec.9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India. Hence, salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India.
Officers of department must not take advantage of ignorance of assessee about his rights and it is their duty to assist tax payer in every reasonable way particularly in claiming and securing reliefs,
Toshiba JSW Power Systems Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The AO had held that payment made by the assessee to non-resident towards cost of salary of seconded employees is fees for technical services as per section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and also as per Article 12(4) of India & Japan DTAA and held to […]
We are of the considered opinion that estimated additions do not call for levy of penalty. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties for all the years, we allow the appeals of the assessee.
The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of ‘change of opinion’ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re¬opening the assessment, review would take place.
Kalyani Seetharaman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT noted that the PCIT has not at all given a finding that the order of the AO i.e., the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and how. We have already noted the finding of PCIT in above para 4 and noted that simple […]
Shri Gopinathan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) It is not the case of the Department that the Assessing Officer has omitted to consider the claim of expenses and thereby passed the rectification order under section 154 of the Act. In this case assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act and during the course of […]
Assessee had given the scientific basis for the warranty in respect of tyres sold to the truck segment and non-truck segment and further the issue was pending with the AO because AO had to verify the details in term of the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT,314 ITR 62(SC). Therefore, the matter need to go back to the file of AO.
In other words, the test would be: Does an ATM fulfil the functions of a Computer in the business activity of an assessee? Is it a tool of his trade with which it carries on his business?
Explore Angalakshmi Spinning Mill vs ITO ITAT Chennai case. ITAT allows spare parts replacement as revenue expenditure. Full text of ITAT Chennai order.
