Follow Us:

Judiciary

Provisions of section 194C not attracted to finance agreements between financing company and producers/directors of films/TV serials

September 3, 2010 1756 Views 0 comment Print

In this bunch of four appeals, the assessee has challenged the impugned common order of the Learned CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 dated 24.11.2006 and all these four appeals are arising out of the orders passed by the I.T.O.(TDS) – 3(1), Mumbai (in short the A.O.) treating the assessee in deemed default for not deducting the tax at source u/s. 194C and 194J of the Act.

Reopening beyond 4 years on the basis of Supreme Court’s judgement not justified if assessee not failed to disclose material facts

September 3, 2010 1468 Views 0 comment Print

The judgment of the Supreme Court is an expression of opinion on the interpretation of statute. Merely because a judgment has been rendered, the same cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment u/s 147 as it amounts to a change of opinion. Austin Engineering 312 ITR 70 (Guj) followed).

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) leviable, even if no tax is payable by an assessee

September 3, 2010 8006 Views 0 comment Print

Even if assessee has disclosed nil income and on verification of the record, it is found that certain income has been concealed or has wrongly been shown, in that case, penalty can still be levied.

AO cannot act u/s. 147 merely because he happened to change his opinion or to hold an opinion different from that of his predecessor on same set of facts

September 3, 2010 792 Views 0 comment Print

Where it was clear from the original assessment orders as well as order made by the appellate authority that the Assessing Officer was well aware about the primary facts, viz., the claim made by the assessee, the circumstances under which the claim was made, and the provisions of law which could be applied while granting the benefits, and the Assessing Officer consciously considered the facts and arrived at a decision, the assessment cannot be reopened merely because subsequently the Assessing Officer changes his opinion or some other officer takes a different view.

For the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10B, speculation business cannot be considered as business of undertaking

September 3, 2010 1161 Views 0 comment Print

We have heard both the parties. A forward contract is an agreement between a buyer and a seller obligating the seller to deliver a specified asset of specified quality and quantity to the buyer on a specified date at a specified place and the buyer in turn Is obligated to pay the seller a pre-negotiated price in exchange of the delivery. In the Instant case, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. In respect of export of readymade ga

Penalty imposable under main provisions of section 271(1)(c) and there is no need to refer to any Explanations

September 3, 2010 696 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on three grounds. Firstly, the assessee has argued that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing the particulars of income but the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty is legally invalid. Reliance has placed on several judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as mentioned in Para 4 earlier. We are unable to accept the arg

Merely because for purpose of stamp duty, property is valued at higher cost, it cannot be said that assesses has made more payment than what is stated in sale deed

September 3, 2010 1552 Views 0 comment Print

These seven appeals by different assessee are arising out of order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, Surat in appeal Nos. CAS-IV/100-106/ 2008-09 dated 12-10-2009. The assessments were framed by ACIT, Circle-7and ITO Ward-7(2) Surat vide their different orders dated 18-12-2008, 16-12-2008 &26-12-2008 respectively for the assessment year 2006-07.

Assessee not expected to demonstrate that contracts are not artificially split

September 3, 2010 1035 Views 0 comment Print

8. We find that there is no dispute about applicability of India Mauritius tax treaty on the facts of the present case, as also about the fundamental position that the provisions of the said treaty being beneficial to the assessee, the same will override the provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act. It is also not in dispute that the profits earned by the assessee from these contracts are business profits in nature and can only be brought to tax in India in the event of Mauritian company having been held to have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. The question that we must, therefore, address ourselves to

Mere fact that assessee has not stated date in appeal(s) memo and appeals were filed by scanned–signature, appeals can only say to be irregularity/ defective and same is curable one

September 1, 2010 768 Views 0 comment Print

Once the assessee has filed fresh appeal(s) memo which borne the signature in ink, date and place, etc., the CIT (Appeals) ought to have treated that defects removed.

Delhi High Court ruling on transfer pricing aspects of marketing intangibles

August 31, 2010 1213 Views 0 comment Print

One of the most challenging issues in TP is the taxation of income from intangible property. The issues may arise in several contexts, such as the appropriate royalty to be charged to a licensee of intangibles or the appropriate inter-company transfer price for goods manufactured and sold to a controlled distributor when the manufacturer owns the trademark for the finished goods in the distributor’s jurisdiction. The OECD has also recently announced that it is considering starting a new project on the TP aspects of intangibles that could result in a revision to the existing guidelines.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031