State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) A plain reading of the section 10(5) read with rule 2B does not indicate any requirement of taking the shortest route for travelling to “any place in India” or putting any kind of restrictions the route to be adopted for going to such a destination. Quite to […]
Asian Paints Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered rival submissions in the light of decisions relied upon and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the assessee in its computation of income has computed disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.23,98,769 by applying certain principles of apportionment. Therefore, it is not a case […]
ACIT Vs Kapu Gems E-Tower Centre (ITAT Mumbai) The Assessing Officer concluded that the TPO has called for specific details pertaining to segmental profitability between AE and non-AE segments within the meaning of section 92D(3) of the income tax Act, 1961. The details were called for during transfer pricing proceedings and assessee was given opportunity […]
we find that compensation received by the assessee towards displacement in terms of Development Agreement is not a revenue receipt and constitute capital receipt as the property has gone into redevelopment. In such scenario , the compensation is normally paid by the builder on account of hardship faced by owner of the flat due to displacement of the occupants of the flat. The said payment is in the nature of hardship allowance / rehabilitation allowance and is not liable to tax.
ADIT Vs Asia Today Limited (ITAT Mumbai) It has not been the case of the revenue authorities at any stage that the remuneration paid to the Indian agent is not an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered by the agents concerned, yet a prayer is now made that the matter should be sent back […]
Cloud hosting services provided USA company to its Indian customers were not covered under the definition of ‘royalties’ as per India-US Tax Treaty as the agreement was to provide hosting services simpliciter and was not for the purpose of giving the underlying equipment on hire or lease and accordingly, it could not be said as royalty within the meaning of Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vi) as well as Article 12(3)(b) of the Indo-USA Data by AO and DRP.
It was found that assessee confirmed loan transactions and confirmation was on record. Revenue nowhere considered said documents and rejected claim of assessee without any basis. Rejection of claim of assessee without any basis was not justified. Issue was restored back to AO to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to assessee.
Supermax Personal Care Private Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The facts on record clearly reveal that in Assessment Year 2012-13 the assessee had purchased new plant and machinery on which additional depreciation @20% is allowable. However, since the plant and machinery were put to use for a period of less than 180 days in Assessment […]
ACIT Vs Rishab Steel House (ITAT Mumbai) Since, Ld.CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier as well as subsequent assessment years on identical issue and decided partly in favour of the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element in alleged non-genuine purchases at 5%, […]
Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Once legislature very graciously accepts, by introducing the legal amendments in question, that there were lacunas in the provisions of Section 50 C in the sense that even in the cases of genuine variations between the stated consideration and the stamp duty valuation, anti-avoidance provisions under section 50C […]
