Income from cloud services was neither taxable as ‘royalty’ nor as ‘fees for included services’ as the customers did not operate the equipment or have physical access to or control over the equipment used by the assessee to provide cloud support services and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc.
Sofina S. A. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Transfer of shares of Singapore Company could not be regarded as a transfer of shares of its Indian subsidiary in absence of see-through approach under clause 13(5) of India Belgium Treaty Conclusion: Gain arising from transfer of shares of A Pte. Ltd., Singapore by the assessee to M/s […]
In the given case the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had received hoarding charges of Rs. 41,80,000/- from M/s Dezen Products for advertising display on boundary walls and the same was offered for taxation under the head Income from House Property.
Even though assessee had made payments to related parties, yet in view of fact that there was no material on record to demonstrate that payment made was excessive and unreasonable having regard to market rate, disallowance made under section 40A(2) by AO was to be deleted.
Provision for leave encashment being in the nature of an ascertained liability was to be reduced while computing the book profit under Section 115JB.
Non-disposal of objections challenging the validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 is not a mere procedural lapse but affects the jurisdiction of AO to pass assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147.
In the given case, the appeal is filed by revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The issue here is that as per assessing officer there is requirement for assesse to prove the source of funds in the hands of the receipts received by assessee.
Where shares are held by an assessee as stock-in-trade, the earning of exempt dividend income on the same would trigger the applicability of Sec. 14A of the Act. Aoordingly shares which were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade were to be considered for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Sec. 14A of the Act.
Where assessee was under a bona fide belief about allowability of certain provisions and there was no suppression of facts or deliberate concealment on assessee’s part, mere disallowance by AO due to difference of opinion could not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Interest income generated during pre-operative period was correctly reduced by assessee-company from WIP as the same was inextricably linked with the power project and would be considered as capital receipt
