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 […]
Where assessee purchased Ground Floor of the house property and had also purchased first floor of the said house property and deduction for both the ground floor and the first floor under section 54F by treating both the floors as one single residential unit thus he was entitled to became two different floors of one house property could not be treated as two different residential houses.
Where no return was filed prior to the date of search and a return had been filed only after the issue of notice under section 153A and in respect of income offered by assessee no proper explanation was provided regarding nature and source of income, AO was justified in initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
Whether the activity of conducting one-day matches’T-20 matches and Indian Premier League matches by Tamil Nadu Cricket Association would amount to doing business or trade?
