Follow Us:

Judiciary

Depreciation @ 60% is allowed on Computer peripherals & accessories

March 22, 2009 57733 Views 0 comment Print

40. The accessories and peripherals of computers provide input processing, storage and various output devices. The output devices such as printer, scanner etc. are computer peripherals and form essential parts of PC. These output devices cannot work in isolation and also working on computer system without an output device such as printer would be futile.

All types of wells and tube-wells would be included in the term building : ITAT Ahmedabad

March 22, 2009 9597 Views 0 comment Print

56. To determine as to whether an asset is a `plant’, the Supreme Court in the case of Scientific Engineering House Private Limited (supra) lays down certain tests. These are : “Does the article fulfill the function of a plant in the assessee’s trading activity? Is it a tool of his trade with which he earned on his business? If this answer is in the affirmative, it will be a plant”

Time limit prescribed for issuance of notice under section 143(2)(i) or 143(2)(ii) of IT Act

March 22, 2009 4535 Views 0 comment Print

8. We have considered he submissions made by both the sides, material on record and orders of the authorities below. We find that the question, before US, is whether limited scrutiny proceedings and regular scrutiny proceedings are independent of each other or not and, therefore, notice issued for limited scrutiny into a regular scrutiny where time to issue notice u/s 143(2)(ii) has expired or not

Mere family connection cannot be a ground for transfer of cases

March 17, 2009 1316 Views 0 comment Print

In connection with search and seizure operations against the R group of companies, the Commissioner of Income-tax after hearing the assessees passed a reasoned order directing transfer of the cases of the assessees from the Income-tax Officers at Kolkata to Patna.

Time Limit of section 149 (3) not applicable to voluntary agents: ITAT Mumbai Special Bench

March 16, 2009 511 Views 0 comment Print

Where the assessee suo motu filed returns as “agent” of a non-resident but no assessment was made and after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year a notice under section 148 of the Act seeking to assess the income and the question arose whether the said notice was barred by limitation u/s 149 (3), HELD:

Allowability of estimated loss on valuation of fixed price contract under the Income Tax Act, 1961

March 15, 2009 460 Views 0 comment Print

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record o the case. The short dispute is whether the anticipated loss on the valuation of fixed price contract, in view of the mandatory requirements of AS-7, is to be allowed in the year in which the contract has been entered into or it is to be spread over a period of contract, as was done by the assessee in earlier years

Tax implications of ‘employee secondment’ contracts : ITAT Bangalore

March 13, 2009 919 Views 0 comment Print

Where the assessee entered into a ‘secondment agreement’ with a US Company and obtained the services of an employee and the question arose whether the reimbursement by the assessee to the US Company of the salary paid by the US Company was chargeable to tax as “fees for technical services” HELD:

Even a Contractor is a “Developer” for purposes of s. 80-IA(4): ITAT Jaipur

March 13, 2009 775 Views 0 comment Print

Where the assessee entered into an agreement with the Vidharbha Irrigation department for supply, erection and installation of dam gates and the question arose whether it was “developing an infrastructural facility” so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA (4) or it was a mere contractor, HELD:

Applicability of Service tax on billing and data processing done by CA firm for Power Distribution Company

March 12, 2009 1514 Views 0 comment Print

In terms of the Board’s clarification dated 28-2-2006, the service rendered namely outsourcing of spot billing work by APCPDCL would come within the ambit of business support service which is liable to service tax only with effect from 2006.

Classification of income received by a promoter from a developer for cancellation of a building project

March 11, 2009 562 Views 0 comment Print

7. It is the first contention of the appellant that the amount in issue is not an income within the definition of the term `income’ set out in section 2(24) of the said Act. We are unable to accept this contention of the appellant and we agree with the findings rendered in this regard by all the lower authorities, including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its impugned order dated 26th July, 2006

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