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 […]
DCIT Vs Pfizer Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) AO treated the rental income of Rs. 5,47,89,000/- received by the assessee from subleasing of commercial properties as income from business as against claim of the assessee being income from house property on the ground that renting out of premises amounts to commercial exploitation for business purpose by the […]
PPG Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It was submitted that SAP license was purchased by the AE at Netherland in bulk quantities. A copy of the agreement entered into between the said AE and the third party along with the copy of the debit note raised by the AE was submitted. It […]
Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The case was reopened pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing, Kolkata wherein it was alleged that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus Long-Term Capital gains (LTCG) by dealing in a scrip namely M/s Unisys Software & Holding Industries Ltd. (in short ‘Unisys’). Accordingly, the case […]
