In DCIT v. M/s. The Hooghly Mills Co.Ltd, the ITAT Kolkata held that shareholding by Subsidiary Company is irrelevant while considering ‘deemed dividend’ liability of Holding Company under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Assessee is entitled for interest under section 244A of the Act on the unpaid interest and the unpaid interest partakes of the character of the principal amount due to the assessee as section 244A of the Act states any amount due to the assessee.
Salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign going ship (with Indian flag or foreign flag) shall not be included in the total income merely because the said salary has been credited in the NRE account maintained with an Indian bank by the seafarer.
In absence of fresh material indicating escaped income, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen already concluded assessment. It was further held that since there was no whisper in reasons recorded, of any tangible material which came to possession of AO subsequent to issue of intimation, therefore, it was an arbitrary exercise of power conferred u/s 147.
In a major relief to the Ernst & Young Pvt Ltd (EY), the Kolkata bench of the ITAT confirmed the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing deduction under sections 10A and 10AA of the Income Tax Act to the Company without set off of loss of taxable unit.
There is nothing brought on record to show that the activities of the assessee are driven by profit motive. In these circumstances we are of the view that the conditions for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act are duly satisfied as the activities of the assessee are genuine and its objects are also charitable.
No technical services were involved in payment of carriage charges made by the assessee for broadcasting of the programmes produced by the assessee. The assessee produced various types of programmes/ serials and news and these were telecasted/ broadcasted through Multi System Operators. Payments in this regard were made as carriage charges for which payment of tax was deductible under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
It has been held that ‘even though the expenditure is not admissible for the computation of the total income either as a bad debt or as an expenditure wholly incurred for the purpose of business, still, it can be allowed as an expenditure as a trading loss if it arises directly from carrying on the business and is incidental to the business.
Now the issue before us arises so as to whether the labourers are the employees of assessee or they are working in contractual capacity attracting the provisions of TDS.
CIT (Appeals) was not correct in law that the assessee will be liable to deduct the TDS if the amount of a single contract exceeds Rs. 20,000/-. The contract has to be looked into party-wise not on the basis of the individual GR. In our opinion, all the payments made to a truck owner throughout the year are to be aggregated to ascertain the applicability of the TDS provision
