These two appeals of the same assessee (assessed in the name of different agents) relating to the assessment year 2007-08 are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly of the even date 27-9-2016 arising out of the order passed under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), both dated 3-3-2015.
In the year 2011, a search conducted on the premises of the residence of the assessee resulted in recovery of certain documents on the basis of which, the department made some addition on account of undisclosed income arising out of appearance fee in ICC Awards function, unexplained expenditure etc.
Briefly the facts of the case as noted in the assessment order are that in this case assessment for A.Y. 2006-2007 has been reopened after recording satisfaction and obtaining approval of Addl. CIT, Range-25, New Delhi, under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.
Where on account of an inadvertent error, PAN of the deductee was wrongly mentioned by assessee, in TDS return, AO was not justified in not permitting the assessee to correct PAN of the deductee, putting the limitation of permitting corrections of only four characters. The case was, therefore, remanded.
Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Here in this case, qua the retail space, the assessee was not carrying on any systematic or organized activity of providing service to the occupiers of the shops, albeit other service charges pertaining to the common maintenance, event and advertising, parking fees, etc., has been offered […]
A division bench of the Bengaluru ITAT, on Tuesday held that the distribution fee paid by Google India to Google Ireland for use of its Ad words programme is taxable in India as royalty under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the interest paid on money borrowed to bring into existence a show room (according to the revenue an income earning apparatus) is a revenue expenditure?
Neither the State Legislature nor the State Government would have the power to make laws/ rules to govern interstate movements of goods in the course of trade, and for the purposes of levy of tax,
A division bench of the Bombay High Court, on Monday, held that insurance charges and carrying charges do not form part of the sale price under section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. A bench comprising Justices R.K Deshpande and Manish Pitale was hearing a departmental appeal against the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal wherein the Tribunal held that insurance charges and carrying charges do not form part of the sale price under section 2(29) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
M/s Drawmet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is settled proposition of law that DDT is chargeable only in the year when it is declared, distributed or paid and not prior to that. In the case on hand the assessee has produced all relevant record to show that the dividend was proposed by […]
