Amount received by SushmitaSen from Coca Cola Company in connection with settlement of a sexual harassment case was not liable to tax as the compensation received could not be termed as any benefit, perquisites arising to the assessee out of the exercise of profession.
Wodehouse Gymkhana Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee claimed that it has earned the exempt income under the principle of mutuality. The assessee claimed its source of income on the basis of principle of mutuality and dividend / mutual fund dividend etc. and income not relating to mutual activity such as interest on bank […]
Expenditure incurred by assessee on education of director was incurred in furtherance of assessee’s business interest and hence, allowable.
Where assessee’s debtor directly made payment through banking channel to assessee’s creditor to square up their account, provisions of section 40A(3) would not be attracted.
Additions could not be made in respect of assessments already completed if no incriminating material was found during search or during 153A proceedings.
Compensation received by foreign companies from assessee for loss of business/profit would constitute business receipts in the hands of foreign companies but the same was not liable for TDS under section 195 as the foreign companies did not have permanent establishment in India.
Amount received by a retired partner from its erstwhile partnership firm could not be claimed as exempt under section 10(2A) as the reading of section makes it clear that it makes profit of a firm assessed as such exempt in the hands of its partners and assessee was not at all partner in the said firm.
Urvish B. Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) “reason to believe”and not “reason to suspect” The undisputed facts are that, the Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai who in turn has got the same from the Sales Tax Department. The information was in the form of statements/affidavits which stated that the suppliers admitted […]
An excess claim of depreciation by an assessee for bonafide reasons would not justify imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) had also been deliberated upon by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom.)
M/s. Shree Ganeshaya Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Delayed pay-in-charges payable by the assessee to sharebroker for making delayed payment of purchase consideration for purchase of shares is infact „interest‟ within meaning of Section 2(28A) of the 1961 Act and the assessee was required to deduct income-tax at source on such interest of […]
