Remuneration paid to six professionals engaged by the company was liable for deduction of tax at source u/s 192 as the same was in the nature of salary as against the claim of the assessee to deduct tax u/s 194J on these payments on the ground that these persons were acting in the capacity of independent professionals and not as employee of the company.
ITAT followed Delhi High Court in Cheminvest and held that, unless during the relevant previous year, assessee earns any exempt income no disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D can be made.
In CBDT circular no.16 of 6th October 2015, the Board has clearly stated that cost incurred in abandoned projects should be allowed as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act.
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-32 [hereinafter called CIT(A)]02-0-2015 passed against the assessment order of the AO u/s 143(3) dated 23-12-2013 for A.Y. 201-12 on the following grounds
Aforesaid appeal of the assessee is against assessment order dated 31st January 2017, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2013–14 in pursuance to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel–1, Mumbai, (DRP), dated 18th November 2016.
Advertisement expenditure incurred after certification by Board of Film Censors cannot be included as part of cost of production, hence, provisions of rule 9A, will not apply. It was held, the expenditure incurred in regular course of business has to be allowed under section 37.
TDS is applicable in case of payment of any sum towards fees for professional services. He submitted, the term any sum, used in section 194J would denote payment in money terms and not in kind.
It was submitted by the assessee that ISO 27001 and ISO 9001:2008 certification are valid for a period of three years but they are neither intangible fixed asset nor transferrable. Hence, the expenditure incurred for obtaining such certificate is revenue in nature as the certificates can be withdrawn if the assessee does not adhere to the requirement of the certificates.
ground raised by appellant was in respect of disallowing of an amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- being professional fees returned to Star India P. Ltd. The said amount had been incurred by the appellant for the purposes of his profession and on grounds of commercial expediency.
Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30th December 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 53, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 2,57,246, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12.
