On plain reading of above section, we find that certain expenditures are not allowable if the assessee failed to deduct tax or after deduction same was not paid in time. However, such expenditures are allowable Provided that where in respect of any such sum. Tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted
In AY 2002-03, the assessee suffered a long-term capital loss. U/s 74(1) as it then stood, such loss could be carried forward and set off against all capital gains including short-term capital gains. S. 74 was amended in AY 2003-04 to provide that long-term capital loss could only be set-off against long-term capital gains and not against short-term-capital gain
We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record in the light of precedents relied upon. The factual position has been elaborately noted in the foregoing paragraphs. To sum-up the facts, it is noted that Shri Kulwant Singh Kohli was the original owner of the three shops which
The assets did not fall under any of the above exceptional three conditions. The said block of assets was used for the purpose of business during the year. Under the circumstances the assets of the said closed unit amounts to use for the purpose of business in the year under consideration ,
In this view of the matter, we hold that the payment of royalty made by the assessee is out side the purview of section 40(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, no TDS is required to be made from such royalty payment. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara (Taxpayer) v ACIT. [2009-TIOL-789-ITAT-MUM] held that where a transfer of shares is made conditional upon fulfillment of certain covenants by the parties, the transfer can be regarded as complete only upon the fulfillment of such covenants.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Bakhtawar B Dubash v. DCIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 403 1/Mum/03), Mrs. Sudha D Dubash v. DCIT, Mumbai ( ITA No. 4032/Mum/03) has held that an amount disallowed in the hands of the Company for corporate tax purposes, should not be taxed again in the hands of its Director as the same amount cannot be taxed twice.
It depends on the facts of each transactions, whether the letting out of the property is incidental and subservient dominant object of selling the property or not. If the property has merely been let out b> the assessee then the same cannot be held to be exploitation of the property for commercial purpose in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Shambhu Investment (supra). We. therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AC) for fresh consideration in the light of aforementioned observation.
Thus we find, if the functional test for a plant enunciated by Apex Court and jurisdictional court in their decisions referred to supra is applied to the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that roads, flyovers bridges etc., constructed and owned by the assessee and utilised in its business of
If we agree with this submission of the Id. A.R that as the ultimate tax liability of the assessee together with its AE does not vary even if the lower price is charged inter se, and hence the exercise done by the TPO be held as fruitless, then the provisions of section 92 to 92F would become redundant. Since the provisions require the determination of the ALP in an international transaction between the associated enterprises, it is imperative to undergo this exercise so as to prevent any loss to the coffers of India kitty. We therefore, reject this submission made on behalf of the assessee as devoid of any merit.
