Learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to unconditionally grant full tax credit to the appellant f or the taxes deducted at source by Reliance Infocomm Limited of Rs 24,41,58,046 and, consequently, grant refund of the said amount as the entire addition made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A). – learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to unconditionally grant credit, and, consequently, refund for a sum of Rs. 21,26,74,006, being the TDS deducted by the payer, in respect of which the original TDS certificates were submitted by your appellant with the AO during the course of assessment proceedings.
When the amount paid by the assessee to the Singapore company for purchase of computer software cannot be treated as royalty, the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source from such payment.
Rs.1,75,57,916/- declared business profit of Rs.18,09,37,887/- in trading of shares and short term capital gain of Rs. 16,33,22,167/- from sale and purchase of shares. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that in the preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y.2004-05, the assessee had not shown any capital gain from investment in shares. The a
The connotations of expression `particulars of income’ do not extend to the issues of interpretation of law and as such making a claim, which is found to be unacceptable in law, cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income
Merely because the property was given on leave or licence for a specific purpose of running restaurant or it was given along with furniture, fixtures as well as other equipments required for running of restaurant, the same, could not change the character of rental income which is “income from house property” and the same would not become business income
We find that the A.O., CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal has only interpreted the provisions of sec. 80-IA(9) and Sec. 80HHC in a different way. As held by their Lordship, in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) that merely because the assessee has made some legal claim which has not been accepted by the A.O. that will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the A.O. for levy of the penalty on the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC, which was not accepted. We, accordingly, delete the entire penalty by cancelling the penalty order passed by the A.O.
The Assessee owned the property at No. 6, 4th floor, `Sahas’, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025. According to the Assessee the aforesaid property had all facilities of being used as a business centre. The Assessee had entered into an agreement dated 10-10-1995 (titled “Agreement for Security Deposit”) whereby the Assessee permitted M/s.
The Assessing Officer can invoke the provision of section 80-IA(10) only when there is a close connection between the assessee carrying on eligible business and any other person or for any other reason, the course of business between them is so arranged that the business transacted between them produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits.
Mohanlal Parekh. The appellant firm entered into a development agreement on 25.4.2003 with Hickson & Dadajee P.Ltd a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 to develop property situated at Village Pahadi, Goregaon (E) owed by M/s Hickson & Dadajee P.Ltd In pursuance of said development agreement, the assessee firm undertook to construct residential building viz., “Acmee Armay” to be residential area constructed at 60,000 sq.ft. approx. comprising 200 flats in 7 wings in ground plus upper floors to be approved. The said residential building has to be constru
Where the supervisory activity of each project of the assessee-company was for less than 75 days, the income from the supervision and installation of the plant cannot be treated as income of the PE; since there was no PE of the assessee, there is no question for treating the income towards supervision, erection and commissioning of a plant as an income of the assessee taxable in India
