In the light of the foregoing, the question is answered in the negative. To elaborate, the applicant being a non-resident during the previous year 2008-09, the income earned by him from his employment in USA can not be taxed under Income-tax Act, 1961.
These two civil appeals are filed by the Department against the order dated 2nd September, 2008, of the Gujarat High Court refusing to formulate, inter alia, the following question of law: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was right in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of
Recently in the case of Kbace Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE/CST CESTAT ruled that the refund or CENVAT credit on input services is allowed only if the services are consumed in the output service. It is held that the Board’s Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST, dated 19-1-10 does not have the effect of amending the statute and cannot be seen as authorizing sanction of refund if the credit of service tax does not relate to services consumed for providing the output service.
A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is – whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was, on the facts and circumstances of this case, justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for the purposes of computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961? In this civil
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 reproduced below for the sake of convenience: –
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.
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 period relevant to the AY 1997-98. Before proceeding further, we may have a look at the provisions relevant to the AY 1997-98 and
Therefore, since it has been held in this judgement that it is imperative on part of the respondents to issue order under section 127(3), the letters/notices under challenge are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed.
The assessee, an exporter, claimed deduction u/s 80HHC on account of foreign exchange fluctuation and interest in the EEFC account on the ground that it was part of business income and arose from exports. The AO & CIT (A) rejected the claim though the Tribunal allowed it.
The assessee, a consortium, was awarded a contract by MMRDA for the monorail project. The assessee filed an application u/s 197 for a certificate that MMRDA be directed to deduct tax at 0.11% on the ground that the percentage of total tax liability to revenue was estimated to be 0.11%.
