All these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the revision orders passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-16, Mumbai u/ s. 263 of the Act and they relate to A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee Mr. Jotwani submitted that the Principal CIT passed the impugned revision orders […]
Since the definition given in Article 12(4) of the DTAA does not contain any consideration for the use or right to use in ‘computer programme’ or ‘software’, the same cannot be imported into it.
These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C of I.T.Act.
Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies in respect of physician sample etc. has remained controversial issue. The recent decision of Mumbai ITAT in DCIT vs. PHL Pharma P. Ltd, Mumbai has thrown new light on the issue.
Onus is on the assessee company to bring on record the cogent evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction which in the instant case the assessee is not able to prove the same as per the facts emerging from the records and material before us as […]
These bunch of miscellaneous applications have been filed by different assessees viz., Reliance Communications Ltd., (formerly known as Reliance Infocom Ltd.), Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., Reliance BPO Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Reliance Infostream Pvt. Ltd.) and Reliance Telecom Ltd.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08 in the matter of order passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act.
The assessee, a civil contractor, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 30,65,277/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) vide order dated 14.03.2013 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 25,11,68,150/- in view of the following additions/disallowances
Simply because the Assessee could not produce the dealers, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer could have made further investigations to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions.
It was, therefore, contended that assessee was not liable to pay advance tax on 15/9/2011 and 15/12/2011 as the receipt of gift was not estimable at the relevant point of time. Apart therefrom, an additional plea has also been raised, which is to the effect that the interest under section 234C of the Act could not be charged while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act.
