Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: D. Karunakara Rao (AM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of income

Though the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 1 crore during the survey on account of discrepencies, errors and omissions in the accounts, at the stage of the assessment, there is no reference to any incriminating material found during the …

ACIT vs. Crescent Property Developers (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 12, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii): Separate agreements for supply & installation cannot be regarded as one composite contract. However, as the installation is an "assembly" project, it will not constitute "fees for technical services". Even if such services are FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) they are excluded from taxation in India by Article 14 of the India-Swiss DTAA as the recipient has no PE in India

(i) It is undisputed that the mailroom equipment comprised of various units and was hence a complex equipment. The bid document clearly stipulated that the units/components of the mailroom equipment would have to be installed and commissioned by trained and …

ITO vs. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »