ITAT Visakhapatnam

No Transfer pricing adjustment is necessary when period and basis of computation of royalty is different from comparable transactions

M/s. Transstory (India) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Transstory (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- The taxpayer was to pay royalty for only seven years and in respect of certain specified product, the royalty payable by the two group companies in China was for 20 years and it was based on sales of all the products. The only basis of adjustment made by the TPO is variation in rates o...

Read More

Business losses carried forward beyond a period of eight years could be deducted in computing the book profit

Susi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Susi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT - Business losses carried forward beyond a period of eight years could be deducted in computing the book profit and hence the limitation of eight years for carry forward and set off of business losses under the normal tax provisions is not applicable while computing book profit under section 115JA of the I...

Read More

Section 50C should be applied only on the date of sale agreement and not on the date of actual registration of conveyance deed

Koduru Satya Srinivas & Anr. Vs ACIT (ITAT Vishakapatnam)

The solitary issue urged in these two appeals is that Whether the Learned CIT(A) is right in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of section 50C in the case of both the assessees....

Read More

S. 50C Relevant Date for Determination of Stamp Duty Value

M/s. Lahiri Promoters Vs. ACIT (ITAT Vishakapatnam)

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for asst. year 2006- 07 declaring the income under the head Capital Gains at Rs. 28,767,565/-, which are related to the gains obtained on sale of three immovable properties....

Read More

Income from even an isolated transaction of sale of land can be considered as business income of an assessee though not carrying on real estate business

Cherukuri Ramesh Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

The process of purchase of land, conversion thereof and sale, compel us to come to the conclusion that the * purchase of land, in itself, was with an intention to sell at a profit in the form of an 'adventure in the nature of trade' and hence though it is an isolated' transaction the income thereon can still be considered as business inco...

Read More

Mythri Transport Vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

M/s. Mythri Transport Vs A.C.I.T. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Whether the vehicles hired by the assessee in execution of the transport contract can be termed as a Sub-contract and consequently the assessee is liable to deduct tax from the payment made for such vehicles u/s 194C (2) of the Act the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source, as per the provisions of section 194C(2), on the payment...

Read More

S. 220(2) Interest chargeable with reference to due date reckoned from original notice of demand

DCIT Vs. AS Krishna & Co. (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

It is thus clear that the entire assessment order was not set aside to enable the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment; the order passed by the first appellate authority was only to enable to the Assessing Officer to vary the assessment originally made and not to take a reiook at all the issues which were considered in the original...

Read More

Finance companies too governed by provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961

DCIT Vs. Erneskay Financial Services Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

For a finance company, money is the product with which it carries on the business. Since the directors have made maiden venture. The necessity of establishing good will and reputation, that too in a finance company, is of utmost necessity. At the same time, it cannot give a permanent license to the company to continue to violate the provi...

Read More

The depreciation cannot be taken as ‘notionally allowed’, but only as ‘actually allowed’

Padmavathi Srinivasa Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory Vs DCIT (ITAT Vishakhapatnam)

The effect of omission of section 34 and Rule 5AA and consequential amendment in section 32 by omitting reference to section 34 makes it clear that one cannot taken support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills, supra, after the amendment. Section 43(6) of the Act which defines the term "Written Down Va...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,003)
Company Law (6,668)
Custom Duty (8,035)
DGFT (4,377)
Excise Duty (4,399)
Fema / RBI (4,410)
Finance (4,662)
Income Tax (34,825)
SEBI (3,725)
Service Tax (3,605)

Search Posts by Date

October 2020