The issue – The principal; rather, the sole issue arising in the instant appeal; the assessee not pressing its ground no.1 assailing the impugned assessment on the question of jurisdiction (which we find to have been, though assumed, not pressed even before the first appellate authority, withdrawing the objection vide letter dated 07.01.2013)
Sec.50 is only to deal capital gain as short term capital gain and not to deem the asset as short term capital asset. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sec. 50 converts long term capital asset into a short term capital asset
Whether for the purpose of determining arm’s length price of international transactions of the assessee-company, providing back office support services to their overseas associated enterprises, companies performing KPO functions should be considered as comparable?
Condition of limiting commercial establishment/shops to 2000 sq.ft, which has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005 would be applicable for the project approved on or after 1.4.2005 and where the approval of the project was prior to 31.3.2005, the amended provision would have no application for those projects.
It is observed that the claim of the assessee for long term capital loss arising from sale of shares of was disallowed by the A.O. by treating the relevant transactions of purchase and sale of shares as a colourable device adopted by the assessee with an ultra motive to claim the long term capital loss.
Financial position of the assessee is very sound as agreed even by its ld. Counsel and any further recovery of the outstanding demand on account of penalty is not going to cause any genuine hardship to the assessee. At the same time, government also needs liquid funds to manage its day to day affairs. Having regard to all these facts & circumstances, we are of the view that the stay of outstanding demand for both the years can justifiably be granted subject to a further payment of Rs.50,00,000/-by the assessee against the penalty imposed for each of the two years under consideration.
Assessee has sold its sales tax incentives and what it has received is not sales tax benefit/incentive but sale consideration on transfer of its entitlement and sale consideration is nothing but is a benefit directly arising from business and, is therefore, a revenue receipt.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the request of the AO to disallow the future losses recognized by the company as per Accounting Standard -7 (AS-7) , as during original assessment proceedings there was no discussion or disallowance on this ground.
An identical issue has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2002-03, Addl. DIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait. Respectfully following the order of this Tribunal, the direct and exclusive NRI Desk expenses incurred by head office were allowed
It was held had held that Disallowance u/s 14A for the period before AY 2008-09 i.e pre-Rule 8D period, should be restricted to 2% of the dividend income. Shakuntaladevi Trade & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
