Search Results For: Abhimanyu Jhamba


Ernst & Young Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 31, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13, 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 44C: A non- resident assessee is entitled to claim deduction of an amount equal to 5% of the adjusted total income as expenditure in the nature of Head Office (HO) Expenses. The fact that the expenses are not debited in the Profit & loss account or the books of account is irrelevant. The entries in the books of account are not conclusive

No doubt, the assessee has not debited the said expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account. However, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has claimed the expenditure in the computation statement. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of British Bank of Middle East (supra) under similar circumstances has held that non-debiting of the expenditure in the books of account of India operations is not relevant for allowability of the same in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). It has been held that as long as the expenditure is really incurred and is otherwise deductible, the deduction cannot be declined on the ground that it has not been debited in the books of account. Since in the instant case there is no dispute to the fact that the head office has incurred the expenditure for the Branch office, the genuineness of which has not been doubted and since the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 44C of the I.T. Act in the computation statement

CIT vs. SMCC Construction India Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): The very nature of a license agreement is that it is not of a permanent nature. The fact that the payment is spread over a period of 10 yearst does not make the assessee the owner of the technical knowhow. The payment is not of an enduring nature

Although the payment is spread over a period of 10 years, it does not make the Assessee the owner of the technical knowhow. The very nature of the license agreement is that it is not of a permanent nature. The benefit to the Assessee as a result of payment of royalty for technical knowhow was not of an enduring nature, and therefore cannot be construed to be a capital expenditure

Charu Home Products Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 13, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 7, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Stay of demand in high-pitched assessments should be considered as per observations in Soul v. DCIT 323 ITR 305 (Delhi)

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax with the approval of the CIT, Delhi-I, New Delhi. By virtue of the said order dated 06.08.2014 the stay application filed by

Top