The assessee did not benchmark the royalty payment separately. On enquiry by the TPO, it relied on RBI approval given in 1995 and also on the fact that the assessee earned a gross profit of 41.6%. TPO applied Press Note 9 (2000 series) and restricted it to 1% on the plea that the payment was for use of trademark without transfer of technology.
The Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of running a fast food and juice centre in Iraniwadi in Kandivali (W) under the name and style of Bhagvwati Juice Centre. Specific information was received from Addl. CIT (Inv.) , Unit-V, Mumbai that the assessee is indulging in non-genuine and […]
Rajnikant D. Shroff Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the assessee is a member of a society owning a building. The society has entered into an agreement with a developer for development of a new building after demolishing the old building. As per the terms of the agreement, the developer has to provide a flat along […]
ITAT Mumbai held that when the department has not disputed the sales transactions disclosed by the supplier in its books who is an income tax assessee then it cannot assume the same as bogus purchases made by the buyer more so when the transaction has been supported by proper documentary evidences and payments are made to suppliers through proper banking channels.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that the surplus/savings arising on prepayment of deferred cannot be taxed u/s 28(iv) as by making prepayment of a future liabity at present value no monetary benefit arises to assessee as the savings it made by prepayment would get set off against the interest it loses by making prepayment.
ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition of flat shall include the cost of amenities even when the agreement requiring the flat purchaser to pay such cost is not registered and no stamp duty paid on amenities cost.
The fall in gross profit ratio could be for various reasons such as increase in the cost of raw material, decrease in the market price of finished product, increase in the cost of processing by the assessee etc.
Claiming Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When Property Builder Could Not Complete The Flat While Assessee Fulfilled Condition Under Above-Mentioned Section.
The only issue that is to be decided is whether the date of allotment of the flat or the date of possession of the flat by the assessee should be considered as the date for computing the holding period of 36 months.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that reimbursement of secondment expensed by assessee to the company seconding its employees to assessee is not subject to TDS as the employer-employee relationship for all legal purposes subsist between seconding company and seconded employees for which seconding company is liable
