M/s. Tamilnadu Brick Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Once registered GPA and JDA confers entitlement to developer to sell, convey or deed in any manner with 60% undivided share, etc., it would be construed nothing but transfer of property being land within meaning of section 2(47)(v). FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal filed […]
Tamilnadu Brick Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The plea of the assessee is that the reckoning of date of transfer should be based on the execution of MOA dated 30.01.2012. The execution of MOA alone does not convey transfer of the schedule property to the developer within the meaning of section 2(47(v) of the Act […]
ITO Vs Late Shri B. Kailasam (ITAT Chennai) Since availing a loan itself is consideration and therefore, constructive benefit was very well accrued to the assessee when the loan was availed by the concerned company, which was owned partly by the assessee. Since, the mortgaged property was sold in discharge of the mortgage created by […]
This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-9, Chennai, dated 30-5-2017 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
Since assessee had made provision for audit fees to account of payee, provisions of section 194J were clearly attracted and non-deduction of tax at source would automatically invite disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).
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.
