ACIT Vs Vinay Girish Bajpai (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee claimed that he has complied with all the requirements of claiming exemption/deduction under section 54 of the IT Act. He submitted that assessee has made the payment to the builder within the stipulated time. There was some issue of obtaining the completion certificate by the builder. Hence, […]
During the year under consideration also the assessee could not substantiate with relevant evidences that these expenses were related to loan syndication fees and the same was claimed as Investment Advisory Services without any break up of the detail of loan advances arranged by these two parties.
Madhavi Raksha Sankalpa Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT noticed that the CIT(Exemptions) has passed the order on 31.08.2020 during the pandemic period without hearing the appellant. It is against the principles of natural justice. A proper and reasonable opportunity is liable to be given to the appellant in accordance with law, therefore, in the […]
Since Indian subsidiary of assessee-company was operating in an independent manner and there was nothing to show that factually speaking the Indian subsidiary constituted a PE of assessee in India, therefore, AO had erred in invoking section 9 of the Act and/or Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA in order to say that the assessee company had a PE in India. Where assessee did not have a PE in India, income of assessee was not allowable to be taxed in India.
Bechtel France SAS Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Facts: The taxpayer is a company incorporated in France and engaged in the business of procurement and construction. It had set up a project office at Mumbai with site offices at other locations in India to build certain refinery and certain complex. The Commissioner of Income-tax observed that there […]
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITA allows depreciation @ 25% on spectrum fee and held that provisions contained under section 35ABB are not applicable to spectrum fee and it further held that PCIT cannot keep an issue alive on the pretext that the order passed by the Tribunal is not accepted by the […]
In this case, we note that assessee is claiming exemption u/s. 80IC. The assessee has not filed return of income u/s. 139(1). As per the provisions of section80 AC it is mandatory for the assessee to file return of income u/s.139 (1) to be eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80-IA or 80-IB, or 80-IAB or 80-IC or 80-ID or 81-E. It is undisputed that assessee has not filed return of income under section 139 (1). Hence, as per the provisions of the act, the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction.
It is held that transponder charges are not in the nature of ‘Royalty income in the hands of recipients despite amendment to section 9(1)(vi of the Act.
Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The first issue that needs to be decided is whether the assessee has a permanent establishment in India or not? This is challenged as per ground 2 of the appeal. We find that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the […]
V.K. Natha co-operative Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue involved in these appeals related to treatment of interest received by co-operative societies from other co-operative societies including cooperative bank under section 80P(2)(d). He submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision […]
