S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital- Interest free loans to subsidiaries – Advance to sister concern for business purposes – Allowable as deduction.
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital- Interest free loans to subsidiaries – Advance to sister concern for business purposes – Allowable as deduction.
S. 12AA : Procedure for registration–Trust or institution- Non communication of changes in the object clause – Registration cannot be refused. [S. 11, 13]
S. 10A : Free trade zone – Development of software- Receiving basic engine from non-eligible unit, developed software at its eligible unit -Entitle to exemption. [S. 260A]
S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Fees for technical services – Developed basic engine and sent same to a non-resident company of Austria to design a new 3-valve cylinder head for improvement of fuel efficiency, performance and meeting Indian emission standard, payment made to Austrian company would not constitute royalty- DTAA-India –Austria. [Art. 6(2), 12]
S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend –Loan to share holder -Holding more than 10 per cent of equity shares of lending company and also having substantial interest in borrowing company- Amount of loan given by lender company to borrower company is held to be assessable as deemed dividend.
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Forfeited amount cannot be assessed as income – Justified in reducing the said amount from cost of the land [ .S.51]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Transfer pricing study report from an outside expert not called in question – Penalty cannot be levied by invoking Explanation 7 to s. 271(1)(c).
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Penalty is not leviable where the AO has failed to mention the specific charge for levy of penalty in the show cause notice under section 274 of the Act. [S. 274]
S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Power to admit additional grounds – Revenue once accepted claim during assessment cannot raise additional ground which was not a subject matter appeal before lower authorities.
S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Delay of 658 days in filing of appeal – Employee failed to deliver the order of the CIT(A) to the CA for necessary action – Delay caused due to bonafide mistake of employee – Delay condoned – Initiated vide notice dated 23.09.2003 but the respective orders were passed on 28.03.2011 which were beyond a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings u/s. 201 of the Act were initiated-orders passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, were barred by limitation.[S.194C,201(1) ,201(IA)]