Whether the ld CIT(A) is justified in holding that the amount received by the appellant from the subscribers are in the nature of fees for technical services to the extent of subscription fees received for providing information/data on various products like financial/ forex/ commodity market and ‘royalty’ for use of equipments such as shared printer, matrix etc., and accordingly, entire receipts are liable to tax @ 20% on gross basis u/s 44D r.w.s 115A.
In a recent ruling Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2010- T11-41-ITAT-MUM-INTL] in the case of J Ray McDermott Eastern Hemisphere Ltd. (Taxpayer) held that receipts pertaining to transportation and installation contract executed by the Taxpayer outside India cannot be taxed under the special provisions, which provide for taxation of certain income of a non-resident on presumptive basis, if the income is not chargeable to tax under the general provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a recent ruling in the case of Tekmark Global Solutions LLC (Taxpayer) [[2010] 3 taxmann 38 (Mum. – ITAT)] the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that as the deputed personnel do not work under the control and supervision of the Taxpayer, such personnel do not create a PE for the Taxpayer in India.
Article 5(2)(i) of the India-Mauritius DTAA defines “permanent establishment” to include “a building site or construction or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, where such site, project or supervisory activity continues for a period of more than nine months“. The assessee, a Mauritius company, executed three contracts in India
We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding rate of deduction of tax at source in respect of job work assigned by the assessee to others as an event manager. There is no dispute that the assessee had not deducted tax at source. The dispute is only whether the case of the assessee will be covered u
We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. The crux of the matter under consideration whether under the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration there is transfer of asset and same is liable to capital gains or loss. The case of the revenue is that the assessee was not the owner of the plot therefore there was no transfer
It is first contended on behalf of the assessee that the view taken by the CIT that section 80IB(2) also applies to assessee’s claiming deduction under sub-section (10) of the section in respect of housing projects is erroneous and untenable as has been held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in (a) Parth Corpn. v. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 368 and (b) Shreejee Ratna Corpn. v. ITO
Now coming to the merits of the case, we noticed that the AO levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) on the ground that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. What is inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act has been discussed in details by the 1TAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Mimosa Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record. Admittedly tax was deducted at source and payment was made/deposited within the time provided under the Act and the returns under Form 26Q as well as 24Q were filed with a marginal delay, reckoned from the due date for filing the regular returns as per the old provisions of the Act. It is
Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DCIT v. Bombay Diamonds Co. Ltd. (ITA no. 7488/Mum/07) held that if the books of accounts of the taxpayer which are not prepared in accordance with part II and part III of schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, the Assessing Officer (AO) can make adjustment in the book profits under section 11 5JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) even if the books of accounts are audited or certified by the auditors and accepted by the shareholders.
