Mumbai High Court held In the case of Pralhad @ Pratap s/o Tanbaji Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra that there has been a report also in the recent point of time that there are some more Corporations of the State of Maharashtra who have indulged into huge misappropriation of the taxpayers’ money in the alike fashion.
If the installation project last for less than 183 day in a fiscal year by a Singapore Company having no Permanent Establishment in India, then business profits of Such Company earned In India from Such project are taxable only in Singapore under article 7(1) of DTAA and Not taxable in India.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of GE Capital Business Process Management Serves Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that M/s. GECC (USA), to whom payment has been made, itself has received the right to use the software internally including its group entities for its business and it does not have any right to commercially exploit the software.
The court also agreed with the view of Delhi HC in CIT vs Dalmia Cement Ltd [ 2002 (254) ITR 377], wherein the court held that once it is established that there is nexus between expenditure and purpose of business (which need not be necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot proceed to disallow the claim.
Pr. CIT vs. M Tech India P. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ACIT vs. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. that on perusal of the reasons recorded by AO for initiating the re-assessment proceedings, it is clear that the said details were available while completing the assessment u/s 143(3). Further, the AO has reopened the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Shri Vimal Kumar Rathi vs. DCIT that it is settled legal position that in the absence of any incriminating material found during search, additions made on the assessed income are unsustainable in law.
Samta Kamal Drolia Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee has received Rs. 2.20 Lakh from His Step Father and contended that he received the amounts in gift. The ld.AR has rejected the explanation of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is step-son of Donor, therefore, their relationship does not fall within the ambit of […]
What is apparent is not always real. To reach out to the real story, one has to undertake the scavenging exercise. This daunting task undertaken by ITAT Amritsar in a recent case pronounced on 05-02-2016 to resolve the mayhem when survey documents along with auditors qualifications had apparently almost maimed the assessee.
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner herein Shri Virendra Pandey seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto against respondent No. 2 Shri Narayan Singh questioning his appointment and for his consequent removal from the post of Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
