Foreign Tax Credit allowable as assessee filed return of income & statement in Form-67 within due dates as extended by Finance Ministry
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the export entitlements is an income assessable under the head profits or gains from business or profession as per clause (iiib) and (iiid) to section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that rent received from sub-letting the property is taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’ and not under the head ‘income from house property’.
3F Industries Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The ALP is to be determined on an international transaction ie., on the international loan and not for the domestic loan. Therefore, the comparable in respect of foreign currency loan in international market is LIBOR based and which is internationally recognized and adopted. In the assessee’s own case […]
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that merely by converting the share application money by allotting shares at a subsequent date cannot attract the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as there is no change in the shareholding pattern subsequent to the allotment of shares by the subsidiary company.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that civil suit is filed before the Hon’ble District Judge accordingly the matter is squarely covered as exception as per proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the act and accordingly we hold that there is no case for invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b).
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that liquidated damages are incidental business income but cannot be said to be profit from core or incidental activity. As there are not directly received from the core activity, they doesnt form part of computation in tonnage tax.
Raghavendra Lorry Services Vs DCIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find from the order of the Ld. AO, the Ld.AO has followed the directions of the CIT and has estimated the income @ 15% on the gross receipts without allowing the depreciation. It was also found from the submissions of the Ld. AR that the assessee a partnership […]
ITAT find that since registration is restored by ITAT, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction U/s. 11 in impugned assessment year
Where Assessing Officer, after following directions of Principal Commissioner regarding examining of claim made by assessee for exemption under section 54F, passed an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 holding that assessee was eligible for exemption as it held only one residential property during year, subsequent revision order passed by Principal Commissioner setting aside impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue was to be quashed
