Search Results For: P.M.Jagtap (AM)


Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) (Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , , , ,
DATE: February 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 206AA does not have an overriding effect over the other provisions of the Act. By virtue of s. 90(2), the provisions of the Treaty override s. 206AA to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Consequently, the payer cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in s. 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons in spite of their failure to furnish the PAN

In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the provisions of section 206AA of the Act will not have a overriding effect for all other provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Treaty to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee will override sect ion 206AA by virtue of section 90(2). In our opinion, the assessee therefore cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers

Pradeep Kumar Chowdhry vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54F: Amount paid to builder for house is equivalent to amount spent by assessee for construction. Fact that only advance is given and construction is delayed beyond 3 years does not deprive assessee of exemption

A flat which is newly constructed by a builder on behalf of the assessee is in no way different from a house constructed. Section 54F being a beneficial provision has to be interpreted so as to give the benefit of residential unit viz., flat instead of house in the present state of affairs. Even if only advance is given the benefit still will be available for exemption u/s. 54F

ACIT vs. B. Rajamallu (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47)/ 53A: Mere handing over possession pursuant to development agreement does not result in transfer if developer has not taken steps for development of property

The AO has assessed capital gain in the assessment year for the reason that assessee as per the terms of the development agreement entered with the developer has handed over possession of the property. However, as can be seen from

Kanchenjunga Greenlands Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The only requirement of s. 249(4) is payment of tax due on returned income. There is no time limit prescribed for payment of such taxes. The delay in filing an appeal after payment of SA tax can be condoned

(i) The only requirement of section 249(4) is payment of tax due on returned income and there is no time limit prescribed for payment of such taxes. Therefore, if an appeal is filed after making of payment, it cannot be

AMD Research & Development Center vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 26, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
In view of the finding of the service-tax authorities that services were rendered, argument that amount paid is a reimbursement of actual cost without profit element is not acceptable and it is chargeable as “fee for included services”

Having held that the amount in question was remitted by the assessee company to ATI Technologies, Canada for certain benefits received by it in the form of services procured by ATI Technologies, Canada from Soctronics India Private Limited and provided

DCIT vs. St. Jude Medical India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 19, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Operating Profit to operating Revenue should be taken as the PLI and not Operating Profit to Operating Cost

The purpose of identifying the PLI is to ensure that the comparability of the controlled transactions is objective and reference in this regard was made by him to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010, wherein it was explained that the

Top