scope of section 154 does not extend to a debatable issue and hence the assessing officer in exercise of power u/s 154 could not have withdrawn the interest u/s 244A(1)(b) on the refund of excess self assessment tax.
In the Case of Income Tax Officer (TDS) Vs. M/s Progressive Civil Engineers Private Limited, ITAT Mumbai held that Lease Premium payment made to CIDCO is to acquire capital asset being long term holding rights along with right to construct and therefore it is capital expenditure in nature.
In case of captive consumption, the valuation would be done under Rule 8 and if same goods are partly sold by the assessee then such goods should be assessed on the basis of transaction value and duty to be determined as per Section 4 for each removal.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Aberdeen Claims Administration Inc., USA and Aberdeen Asset Management Plc., UK that there is no doubt that the settlement amount is relatable to Satyam shares
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Aker Contracting FP ASA, Norway, USA that it is beyond doubt that the consideration received as per amended order is similar to consideration received as per original contract.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), USA, that it is clear that even if right to sue is considered as capital asset covered under the definition of transfer within the meaning of section 2(47), its cost of acquisition cannot be determined.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Dow AgroSciences Agricultural Products Ltd, Mauritius that the Article 13 of the Indo-Mauritius DTAA which deals with the taxation of capital gains is not applicable in the present case.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Tiong Woon Project & Contracting (Pte) Ltd. that the department has correctly provided a positive response that because the project was continued in India only for 178 days in a fiscal year
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of SkillSoft Ireland limited that in the case of Synopsis International Old Ltd. 212 TAXMAN 454 (Kar), high court held that merely because the words non-exclusive and non-transferrable are used in the license agreement, it does not take away the software out of definition of copyright.
Authority for Advance Rulings held In the case of Satyam Computer Services Ltd., that it is trite law that unless the payment made attracts the tax under the Income Tax Act, there would be no liability to deduct tax under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
