Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2)(AB) on the ground of non approval of expenditure claimed by the DSIR was allowable as prior to the amendment, i.e., upto 30.06.2016, the pre-requisite for allow ability of deduction was approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. Moreover, AO disallowed the claim without due application of mind.
Since possession of land was not handed over to the Developer by assessee-society, therefore, there could not be any transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even based on part performance of the contract. Accordingly. there was no liability of capital gain tax under section 50C.
DCIT Vs IMCD Group B.V. India Branch (ITAT Mumbai)- The issue under consideration is whether the depreciation is allowed on Non- Compete Fees under section 32 of the Income Tax Act?
Provisions of section 56(2)(viia) was not applicable on acquisition of shares of a foreign company from its directors because as per rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines “balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company and the amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 was prospective in nature. If the computation provisions could not apply, the charging section also could not apply as both sections should be read together in order to make the said provisions workable in accordance with law.
Services rendered by foreign concern for introducing a client did not make-available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to assessee, therefore, related payment did not fall within the realm of “Fees for included services” as envisaged in Article 12 of the Indo-US, DTAA and payment made to foreign concern constituted its business profits within the meaning of Article 7 Indo-USA DTAA, and in the absence of any Permanent Establishment of the said foreign concern in India no taxability arose and, therefore, assessee was not liable to withhold tax under section 195.
Prohibition imposed by Indian Medical Council against acceptance of gift was on medical practitioner/doctor, and not on pharmaceutical companies, therefore, where assessee incurred expenditure towards gifts, which were bearing logo and name of the assessee, the expenditure were only for sales promotion, therefore, disallowance made by AO in respect of the expenditure was unjustified.
If at the time of giving the donation to the research Institute it had a valid registration granted under the Act, subsequent withdrawal of such approval with retrospective effect would not be a reason to deny deduction claimed by the donor under under section 35(1)(ii) for Scientific research expenditure.
Where assessee claimed that there was wrong credit entry by payer-client in Form 26AS, AO was required to examine its genuineness before making any addition on account of mismatch between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and in profit and loss account. Thus, matter was remanded for re-adjudication.
We find that in this case the assessment was framed by the AO after making ex-parte addition of Rs.16,54,146/-towards 100% of the bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can not be imposed. We are, therefore, setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.
ITO Vs. Ambika Metalchem Impex P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, we find that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus of proving the identity of the investors, creditworthiness of the transactions and genuineness of the transactions. Notices issued u/s 133(6) have been responded to. In such a scenario, the onus to […]
