Follow Us:

ITAT Mumbai

Whether Compensation received for termination of the joint venture is capital or Revenue receipt?

September 2, 2011 4922 Views 0 comment Print

ITO Vs M/s Mechanalysis (India) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether when the agency agreement between the assessee and the non-resident continues even after expiry but no royalty is paid during this period, compensation paid to the assessee after many years later for formal termination of the agreement is akin to loss of profit-making apparatus, and thus, is capital receipt?

Preference Share Redemption not taxable as deemed dividend & amounts to ‘transfer’

September 2, 2011 14202 Views 0 comment Print

Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- It is held that redemption of preference shares amounts to ‘transfer’ of a capital asset under the Income-tax Act and any loss on redemption thereon would thus be allowable as a capital loss.

Penalty for inadmissibility of legal claim not justified

September 1, 2011 930 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT Vs. Sumit P. Bhattacharya (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee was an employee of M/s Procter and Gamble India Ltd., which is a group company of Procter and Gamble of USA. The company had given appreciation rights to the assessee. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmender Textiles, 306 ITR 307, we find that CIT(A) as well as ITAT have not cancelled penalty on the ground of mens rea, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in this case is not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. Contrary to that, the case under consideration is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. Cited supra. In the light of above discussion, we hereby cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

‘False and frivolous, submissions by CIT (DR) before ITAT constitute ‘criminal contemp’ and justify recovery of costs from salary

September 1, 2011 6537 Views 0 comment Print

CIT (DR)- XII, ITAT Vs. Simoni Gems (ITAT Mumbai) -In appeal assessee raised preliminary objection that the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued within the prescribed period of 12 months and AO accepted that the notice under 143(2) notice was not been issued in time. Accordingly, the Tribunal, relying on Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), dismissed the department’s appeal without going into the merits of the appeal.

The expression ‘may also be taxed’ used in Article 7 permits only the State of Source to tax such income and the State of Residence is precluded from taxing such income

August 28, 2011 1338 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs. M/S. Essar Oil Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the profits of Oman PE and the loss of Qatar PE of the taxpayer are to be excluded for tax purposes in India, as per Article 7 of respective DTAAs?

CIT(A) cannot dismiss the assessee’s appeal without adjudicating upon the question as to whether the law to s 248, as amended with effect from 1 June 2007, was applicable or not

August 28, 2011 7707 Views 0 comment Print

Jet Air (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for disposal afresh since the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal without adjudicating upon the question as to whether the law to s 248, as amended with effect from 1 June 2007, was applicable or not merely on the ground that it had never approached the AO for a certificate under s 195(2) for the remittance of the amount without the deduction of tax.

Payment made for accreditation not covered by the definition of ‘royalty’ under Article 13(3) of India UK tax treaty

August 28, 2011 13936 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Accreditation does not allow the accredited product to use, or have a right to use, a trademark, nor any information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience – or, for that purpose, use or right to use of anything falling in any other category of clause (a).

If Additions based on seized materials sustained, penalty is warranted

August 27, 2011 1321 Views 0 comment Print

Triumph International Finance I Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- the undisclosed income determined in the case of the assessee is not as a result of disallowing any claim of the assesse because the same is not allowable as per the provisions of law but undisclosed income has been determined on the basis of the evidences found during the course of search, which has established the fact that the true nature of transactions have not been recorded by the assessee in the books of account and the same has resulted the undisclosed income.

Payment for software cannot be treated as a payment for ‘process’ liable to be taxed as royalty – ITAT Mumbai

August 27, 2011 1714 Views 0 comment Print

ADIT Vs TII Team Telecom International Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- In terms of the provisions of Article 12 (3) of the Indo Israel tax treaty, royalty is defined, for the purposes of this tax treaty, as “payments of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematography films, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience”.

Lack of good faith and due diligence cannot be inferred when the grounds on which ALP determined by the assessee has been rejected are reasonably debatable

August 27, 2011 1319 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs RBS Equities India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Rejection of most appropriate method selected by the assessee does not mean that assessee carried out transfer pricing study without good faith and due diligence and hence, penalty for concealment of income cannot be sustained.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031