As a matter of fact, all infrastructure and process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of RJIPL, and the same was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services. We are persuaded to subscribe to the observations of the CIT(A) that as the process involved to provide the bandwith services was not a secret i.e IPR in the process was not owned/registered in the name of RJIPL, but was a standard commercial process that was followed by the industry players, therefore, the same could not be classified as a secret process which would have been required for characterizing the aforesaid payment made by the assessee to RJIPL as royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA.
DCIT Vs Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) A careful look at sub-section (1) of section 244A would reveal that it has three parts. The first part deals with the entitlement of a person to interest whenever he is due to get a refund from the Department. The second part relates to the method of […]
Where the assessee objects to the adoption of stamp duty valuation as deemed sale consideration during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to make a reference to the DVO.
Citi Centre Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The issue in dispute in that case as per the Para reproduced from the Tribunal’s order above is regarding rent received from Reliance Telecom and in that case also, the assessee claimed a deduction u/s. 24 (a) of Rs. 1.65 Lakhs being 30% of such […]
ACIT Vs Ashwin S. Bhalekar Beamon Chambers (ITAT Mumbai) Claim of the assessee that extinguishment of rights in the capital asset is a transfer of capital asset and capital gains and consequent allowance of claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. The facts clearly show that the extinguishment of assessee’s right in Flat […]
Elsevier Information Systems GmbH Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Whether the subscription fee can be treated as fees for technical services. As discussed earlier, it is evident that the assessee has collated data from various journals and articles and put them in a structured manner in the database to make it more user friendly and beneficial […]
Assessee-trust was entitled to claim excess expenditure over income being deficit to be carried forward for setting it off in subsequent years as income derived from trust property had to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles were applied then adjustment of expenses incurred by trust for charitable and religious purposes in earlier years against income earned in subsequent year would be regarded as application of income in the subsequent year having regard to benevolent provisions contained in section 11 and such adjustment would be excluded from income of the trust under section 11(1)(a).
Nature of income which had been rental earning from the house property would not change just because it had been received by assessee-company formed with the object of carrying out business as builder and developer, therefore, AO had, rightly assessed the rental receipts under the head Income from house property.
Further it is the claim of the assessee that subsequent to the sale of flat on which depreciation was claimed assessee has purchased a flat the income from which has been offered under the income from house property and that the new flat enters into the block of asset irrespective of the use. When the income from the new flat is being offered as income from house property by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it falls into the block of depreciable assets.
In the case before us was entitled to claim exemption u/s. 54 to the extent he had invested towards the purchase of the new residential property under consideration upto the date of filing of his revised return of income under Sec. 139(5) i. e. on 15. 11. 2014.
