Whether the ITAT was right in holding that payment of Rs. 70 lakhs made by the appellant on account of non-competition for a period of five years was in the nature of capital expenditure?
A.O. disallowed the payment of commission made by the assessee to the above said two doctors namely (i) Dr. Ramanbhai S. Patel Rs. 17,52,130/- and (ii) Dr. Ratilal G. Patel Rs. 23,87,001/- totaling to Rs. 41,39,131/- and added to the total income u/s. 37(1) of the Act.
Only a right under the agreement to receive the interest by the assessee without reasonable certainty of realization of the same cannot be brought to income tax.
Undisputedly the assessee has not earned any exempted income. Now it is settled position of law that whenever assessee did not earn any exempt income, no dis allowance could be made u/s. 14A of the Act.
Visakhapatnam bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that remuneration paid to partner cannot be disallowed since there is a clause existing in the partnership deed which specified the exceeding limit.
No disallowance U/s 14A of Act need to be made by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D (2) (ii) of Rules as investments admittedly are business expediency investments and strategic investments.
Surcharge and education cess should not be included, while calculating the tax effect. Since the tax thereon was Rs. 9 Lakhs only, which is less than Rs. 10 Lakhs limit prescribed, the Bench was of the opinion that there was no merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue.
If a provision of law had been clearly overlooked or ignored in the assessment order, it would not be open to Asessing Officer to reopen the assessment after expiry of four years in case no failure on assessee’s part to disclose fully and truly all material facts was alleged.
Though the Learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that it is a mistake of the Accountant and cannot be rectified, in my view, if a genuine mistake has crept-in, then, within the time permitted under the Statute, the dealer is entitled to file revised Form WW or revised return.
A division bench of the Ahmedabad CESTAT recently held that Service Tax is not payable for screening of films in multiplex on a revenue sharing basis. The issue before the bench was that whether the appellant, M/s PVS Multiplex Pvt Ltd is liable to pay service tax on the screening of films in their multiplex and also whether they are liable to pay service tax under the head renting of immovable property?
