Rajesh Rajkumar Nagpal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of 2(22)(e) were not applicable since the payment was mere reimbursement of expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) proceeded on wrong footing that the same would be personal expenditure and hence, disallowable completely overlooking the fact that the said expenditure has never been claimed by the assessee anywhere while computing […]
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have noted that the hearing of stay petition was concluded, as per information available to us, on 17th January 2020, but the order thereon has not been passed as yet since one of the Members constituting coram of the bench has gone on tour to Delhi […]
Undisputedly, the assessee has obtained the tax audit report on 10th September 2013, i.e., much before the due date of filing of return of income. However, as stated by the assessee, due to lack of clarity and misinterpretation of the Circular issued by the Board, the assessee did not filed tax audit report before the due date of return of income. In our view, the aforesaid explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be plausible, therefore, benefit of doubt can be given to the assessee
Statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same were backed by credible evidences. Assessee could not prove the source and nature of transactions, the stated amount was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 and the original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement in law to trigger assessment was that AO had certain reasons to believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee.
Technimont Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is only elementary that merely because a section is amended or even substituted, whether by repeal of the legislation itself or by amendment in the legislation, the notifications, circulars and instructions issued therein do not cease to hold good. Section 297(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically […]
Kaybee Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it […]
Since the final assessment orders after amalgamation was passed in the name of non-existent company by the AO, the same was bad in law and therefore, set aside.
Celltick Technologies Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) If the arms length principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India e find that the […]
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 […]
