Mohanlal Parekh. The appellant firm entered into a development agreement on 25.4.2003 with Hickson & Dadajee P.Ltd a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 to develop property situated at Village Pahadi, Goregaon (E) owed by M/s Hickson & Dadajee P.Ltd In pursuance of said development agreement, the assessee firm undertook to construct residential building viz., “Acmee Armay” to be residential area constructed at 60,000 sq.ft. approx. comprising 200 flats in 7 wings in ground plus upper floors to be approved. The said residential building has to be constru
Where the supervisory activity of each project of the assessee-company was for less than 75 days, the income from the supervision and installation of the plant cannot be treated as income of the PE; since there was no PE of the assessee, there is no question for treating the income towards supervision, erection and commissioning of a plant as an income of the assessee taxable in India
During the year, the assessee paid Rs.2,83,43,188 to various contractor. The AO noticed that the payment of TDS was not made within the statutory period in respect of payments of the contractors and therefore, it required to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). The assessee claimed before the AO that the entire payment was made in the month of March 2005 and tax was deducted in the month of March 2005 only Therefore, the tax deposited on 21.09.2005 is within the statut
The amount receivable by the assessee, who is a share broker, from his clients against the transactions of purchase of shares on their behalf constitutes debt which is trading debt; the brokerage/commission income arising from such transactions very much forms part of the said debt and when the amount of such brokerage/commission has been taken into account in computation of income of the assessee of the relevant previous year or any earlier year, it satisfies the condition stipulated in section 36(2)(i) and the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) by way of bad debts after having written off the said debts from his books of account as irrecoverable.
The true test, therefore, must lie in whether or not the view taken by the Assessing Officer could be said to be a possible view of the matter, upon due application of mind to facts of the case as also the applicable legal provisions.
The assessee is maintaining separate books of account for the purpose of business. The tax-free investments are in his personal capacity. As the AO has not disallowed any expenditure of personal nature out of the business income, the expenditure claimed in the business of share dealings cannot be correlated to the incomes earned in personal capacity that too on dividend, PPF interest and tax free interest on RBI bonds. Accordingly, the estimation of expenditure of Rs. 20,000 out of business expenditure as being incurred for earning tax free income is not acceptable.
A continuing debit balance, in our humble understanding, is not an international transaction per se, but is a result of the international transaction. In plain words, a continuing debit balance only reflects that the payment, even though due, has not been made by the debtor.
It was held that the payment of National roaming charges is not rent for the use of telecom equipments in accordance with Section 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and accordingly not liable for deduction of tax at source.
CUP method is the ‘most appropriate method’ to determine the arm’s length price in the cases of generic drug manufacturers so long as comparables are available and while innovators of drugs are allowed monopolistic pricing during the period when patents are in force so as to recoup the R & D costs, once the patent period expires, the higher pricing of the drug vis-à-vis prices of generic drugs manufactured by competitors cannot be justified on the ground of heavy R&D costs.
In Circular 204 dated 24.7.1976, the CBDT has accepted that u/s 23(1)(a) the “sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year” is the municipal valuation of the property. The same view that the Municipal valuation is the annual value u/s 23(1)(a) has been taken in CIT vs. Prabhabati Bansali 141 ITR 419 (Cal) & M.V. Sonavala vs. CIT 177 ITR 246 (Bom); The contrary view in Makrupa Chemicals 108 ITD 95 (Mum) & Baker Technical Services (P) Ltd 126 TTJ (Mumbai)(TM) 455 that annual value determined by the Municipal authorities is not binding on the AO while determining the annual value u/s 23(1)(a) if it can be shown that the rateable value under the municipal laws does not represent the correct fair rent cannot be followed in view of M.V. Sonavala 177 ITR 246 (Bom) where it was held that the rateable value under the municipal law has to be adopted as annual value u/s 23(1)(a); Note: The issue whether notional interest can be considered u/s 23(1)(a) is pending before the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba
