ITAT Judgments - Page 384

If Income not disclosed then Assessee is liable for levy of concealment penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)

Prithvi Pal Bindra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The reply of the assessee in response to show cause notice against levy of concealment penalty have already been reproduced in para 5 of this order. The relevant portion of statutory provisions regulating levy of concealment penalty are repro...

Read More

Payments of transponder hire charges to foreign company by Indian Company is Royalty

Asia Net Communications Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Just because Satellite was owned by another company, would not change the colour of payment, which would remain a `royalty'....

Read More

Deferred revenue expenditure allowable entirety in the year in which it was incurred

ACIT Vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. Core Towers (ITAT Ahemdabad)

For the purpose of allowability of any expenditure under the Act , what is material is the classification between the capital and revenue and the same does not recognise any concept of deferred revenue expenditure....

Read More

Section 80-1A(2) benefit available to telecommunication services undertaking for 10 consecutive years from the year of exercise of option

ACIT Vs Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (ITAT Ahemdabad)

We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case and the decisions cited before us. The issue before us as to whether or not the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA in terms of the provisions amended w.e.f 1.4.2000 even when the assessee had already started providing telecommunication services in the peri...

Read More

If assessee’s income not exempt u/s. 10 rather same was eligible for deduction u/s. 80P, assessee’s case was not hit by provisions of section 14A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kribhco (ITAT Delhi)

ACIT Vs. Kribhco (ITAT Delhi) - Terms 'exempt income' and 'deduction from income' are two different propositions and, therefore, where assessee's income was not exempt under section 10 rather same was eligible for deduction under section 80P, assessee's case was not hit by provisions of section 14A....

Read More

To compute the PE ‘duration test’ under Art. 5 (2) of the DTAA, different project sites can be aggregated only if the test of interconnection and interrelationship is satisfied

ADIT Vs. Valentine Maritime (Mauritius) [ITAT Mumbai]

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, execu...

Read More

Section 194C(1) is applicable to job work assigned by an event manager to others

EMC Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

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 wi...

Read More

Word ‘Capital asset’ in section 2(14) does not necessarily mean that property, which assessee holds, must be his own

Asian PPG Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

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 ...

Read More

Housing Projects: Provisions of sub-section (10) not governed by provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80-IB

G. V. Corporation Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

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 ...

Read More

Assessing Officer cannot impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of routine and general presumptions

ITO Vs. Oasis Securities Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

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 o...

Read More
Page 384 of 445« First...102030...382383384385386...390400410...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,504)
Company Law (3,434)
Custom Duty (6,631)
DGFT (3,467)
Excise Duty (4,048)
Fema / RBI (3,272)
Finance (3,475)
Income Tax (25,145)
SEBI (2,753)
Service Tax (3,286)

Search Posts by Date

October 2017
« Sep