ITAT: Crossing revenue threshold u/s 2(15) cannot result in cancellation of trusts’s Sec 12AA registration

Mumbai ITAT quashes DIT(Exemption) order u/s 12AA(3) cancelling registration granted to the assessee (a public charitable trust set up with the objects for promoting development of various arts) u/s 12A w.e.f.  AY 2009-10; Takes note of Revenue’s stand that during relevant AY, auditorium collections by assessee were in excess of the stipulated limit of Continue reading ITAT: Crossing revenue threshold u/s 2(15) cannot result in cancellation of trusts’s Sec 12AA registration

Have you got a notice from I-T Dept for large deposits? Here’s what you need to do

 

 

As part of the Income Tax Department’s Operation Clean Money, as many as 18 lakh taxpayers had been asked to explain large deposits made by them in the weeks after demonetisation. Taxpayers were alerted through SMS and emails, and were asked to furnish details by February 15.   Continue reading Have you got a notice from I-T Dept for large deposits? Here’s what you need to do

SC: ‘Global telecommunication facility’ cost reimbursed by Indian agents not FTS; Upholds Bombay-HC ruling

SC dismisses Revenue’s appeal challenging Bombay HC decision in the case of A.P. Moller Maersk A/S (assessee, a Danish shipping company); Holds that amounts received by the assessee from its Indian agents for Maersk Net (a global telecommunication facility) is not taxable in India as fees for technical services; SC notes that a common facility was   Continue reading SC: ‘Global telecommunication facility’ cost reimbursed by Indian agents not FTS; Upholds Bombay-HC ruling

No penalty is automatically leviable for declaring higher income in return filed u/s 153A than what was filed originaly u/s 139(1)

THE ISSUE IS – Whether penalty is to be levied automatically whenever the assessee declares a higher income in his return filed u/s 153A in comparison to the original return filed u/s 139(1). NO is the verdict.  

Continue reading No penalty is automatically leviable for declaring higher income in return filed u/s 153A than what was filed originaly u/s 139(1)

Imp Special Bench Verdict On S. 206AA TDS Law

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

  1. 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

SC : Dismisses Revenue’s SLP; Upholds ‘phase-wise’ business set-up for Sardar Sarovar project

SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP against Gujarat HC judgement in case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (‘assessee’ engaged in execution of ‘Sardar Sarovar  Project’, mainly consisting of construction of dam on the river Narmada) for AYs 1989-90 to 2000-01; HC had allowed assessee’s claim for expense deduction while computing ‘ income from business’, despite entire project for construction of dam, canal not complete during relevant years; HC had rejected Revenue’s stand that only on completion of work of entire canal, assessee’s business can be said to  have been set-up and only thereafter assessee qualified for deduction; HC noted that assessee’s activity could be divided into three categories ¬  (i) Construction of Dam and related works (ii)  Hydro-Power Plant and (iii) Narmada Main Canal;  HC had held that “In a Project like the ‘Sardar Sarovar’, there are bound to be different stages where different activities take place and those activities being integral part of business and when they are set up phase wise, the assessee cannot be deprived of the benefits of fiscal legislation in disregard of the well settled principles on the issue.”:SC