Since AO had not considered revised return of income which was filed within prescribed period of limitation for the difference between income disclosed in return and total receipts as per Form 26AS, therefore, the matter was remanded back to AO with direction to verify the fact and grant relief to assessee in accordance with law.
The issue under consideration is whether set off of the ‘unabsorbed depreciation’ can be allowed irrespective of continuity of the business in next year?
The issue under consideration is whether the services, the modeling, rendered by Ms. Katrina Kaif in this case constitutes professional service and the fee paid to her for modeling with the purpose of marketing of the camera products of the assessee liable for TDS u/s 194J?
ITAT Mumbai rules compensation for reduced partnership share is not capital gains. Anik Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT case. Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13.
In the given case, the assessee is engaged in the trading of iron and steel. A.O. has reopened the assessment on getting information regarding assessee taking accommodation purchase bills.
Service fees and membership & subscription fees were incurred for the purpose of business and to set up a transaction meant for overseas capital market, therefore, this expenditure could be treated preliminary expenditure for the purpose of business.
Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Mumbai ITAT worked from home and lifted attachment u/s 226(3) from Bank and debtors of COVID quarantine facilities constructor 1. The taxpayer sought an urgent hearing in respect of the recovery of the Income-tax demand of Rs. 2.91 Crores for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The total income […]
Since assessee had no intention to make a full and true disclosure of its income as it would not have filed a revised return of income showing higher income before issuance of the notice 143(2)/142(1) by AO, therefore, AO rightly held that assessee had deliberately and consciously failed to furnish full and true particulars of income and attempted to conceal income and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.
Once the domestic law prohibits allowing any deduction for the purpose of calculating ‘fees for technical services/fees for included services’, then, the same was not an allowable deduction and, therefore, AO and CIT(A) were right in holding that the assessee was liable to be taxed on gross basis rather than on net basis.
If the taxpayer was in a position to carry a transaction in two alternative ways, one of which would result in lower tax liability, the assessee would be at liberty to choose that particular method. Pursuant to the terms of both the agreements, the transactions had been carried out and assessee as well as other 6 persons had offered their respective share of rental income in their own tax returns thus, the agreement could not be termed as sham agreement or an artificial structure with a view to evade tax liability.
