DCIT Vs Orbit Exports Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We find that assessee had also received interest subsidy under TUF scheme of Rs.56,54,913/- and interest subsidy of Rs.29,18,192/- from Government of Gujarat and Maharashtra. We find that this subsidy originally was offered as revenue receipt by the assessee in its return of income, which was sought to […]
ITO v. Raj Tools Centre PAP (ITAT Mumbai) Appeals is against addition of ₹.2,60,603/-, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementioned parties were found to be involved in giving accommodation entries only without actually supplying the goods. The logical inference is […]
DCIT TDS Vs Reliance Communications Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other telecom service provider are not in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ no TDS under section 194J is liable to be deducted. Once there is no liability for deducting tax at source, question of charging interest under […]
Bank of India Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: PCIT rightly directed Bank of India’s case to TPO for determination of arm’s length price (ALP) in relation to international transactions and specified domestic transactions under revision proceedings as it was binding on AO as per the CBDT Circular in force at that point of time under […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Income received for sale of specialized software and maintenance and support services is considered as ‘Royalty’ as per India-Finland Tax Treaty?
The issue under consideration is whether the TDS u/s 194I is applicable on the rent if the accommodation services were taken on a casual basis?
ITO Vs New Era Advisors P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Even if amount received in form of huge share premium was not utilized for the purpose of section 78(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the same would not have any relevance for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, while the utilization of premium […]
The issue under consideration is whether the roaming charges paid by the assessee to the other telecom service provider are in the nature of ‘Fee for technical Services’ and hence liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 194J of the Act?
Once assessee has provided a reasonable explanation about ownership of account, then the onus was on the Assessing Officer to establish that the account belongs to the assessee. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Company Limited wherein, it was held that where prima-facie inference on facts is that the assessee explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue.
The issue under consideration is whether the stay of demand will be granted for the 2nd time to the assessee or not?
