Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We shall first advert to the remittance of USD 100,000 made by the assessee towards licence fees to M/s Fair Isaac International Corpn. We have perused the copy of the agreement entered into by the assessee with M/s Fair Isaac International Corpn i.e “Fair Isaac Order […]
Saif Ali Khan Pataudi Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case the property or part thereof was vacant during the period, the proportion deduction should be allowed from the sum on which the property might reasonably be let out from year to year. We find that it is the plea of the assessee that due to […]
Where assessee had independently acquired multiple flats, which, however, were joined together and used by the assessee as a single residential unit, the claim for exemption under section 54 in respect of total investment made towards acquisition of the said flats could not be denied.
Where assessee (Indian branch office) had reimbursed the payments towards management charges to its overseas head office, addition under section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified because it was against the object of Indo-US DTAA.
When no exempt income was received or receivable on the investments, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is warranted.
Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. ADIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer has to strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c): Deutsche Bank case
M/s. Savvis Communications Corporation Vs DCIT- International Taxation (ITAT Mumbai) Undoubtedly, when the assessee receives an income on account of allowing a customer to use a scientific equipment, it does become taxable for the reason of its being characterized as such, but the use of a scientific equipment by the assessee, in the course of […]
Vidyasagar M.P. Sah Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case Though activity of purchase and sale of shares was not the main occupation of assessee, however, high volume of trade in shares, and very short holding period showed that assessee was using his knowledge, skill and resources to deal in shares, and gains arising on […]
Merely because the assessee had sold the shares at face value in a distressed situation it could not be presumed that the assessee had engineered the transaction to manage its tax liability. Therefore, AO was not justified in disallowing the claim of assessee for set off of long-term capital loss on sale of unquoted equity shares against long-term capital gain on the sale of property.
Where overseas HO was not liable to pay any tax on interest remitted by assessee, there was no obligation to deduct TDS under section 195(1) on such remittance because TDS provisions are attracted only when such remittance results in taxable income.
