Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai vs M/S. J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. ... on 21 November, 2016

Wns Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 10(2)(4), Mumbai on 16 January, 2019

He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd., in ITA no.2188/2013, dated 21stMarch 2016. Further, the learned Sr. submitted that in assessee's own case for assessment year 2012-13, the DRP has expressed similar view as has been expressed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sh. Gautam R Chadha, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 18 September, 2017

15. AO while computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act concluded that the same is required to be computed after setting off brought forward losses of Rs.34,99,523/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,05,013/-. However, this controversy has already been set at rest by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as CIT vs. Yogokawa India Ltd. - 391 ITR 274 (SC) and CIT vs. JP 10 ITA No.5622/Del./2010 Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. - 393 ITR 24 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M/S. Synergy Electric Pvt. Ltd., , ... vs Ito, Ward - 12(3), Kolkata , Kolkata on 31 October, 2018

Since the provisions of section 10A are analogous with the provisions of Section 10B, we respectfully follow the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogwa India Ltd (supra) and J.P. Morgan India Ltd. (supra) and direct the AO to allow deduction under section 10B to the assessee as computed on the profits of the eligible unit for the year under consideration without setting off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Resonate Consulting P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 9(3)(4), Mumbai on 19 April, 2017

In the case of Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P Ltd. (supra), the issue was whether the incentive commission paid to sister concern was excessive and unreasonable. The Tribunal held that the revenue had allowed similar rate in earlier years. The sister concern was paying tax at a higher rate. The Hon'ble High Court held that it was not a case of evasion of tax and deduction was to be allowed. Here the issue is different. The AO during the course of assessment proceeding asked the assessee to justify the reasonableness of payment u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The assessee was asked by him to furnish a detailed note with proof about services availed from SSCPL. The AR of the assessee could not provide a note to the AO on services availed from SSCPL. Then the AO applied the profit @ 20% which we find unreasonable. The same has been ITA No. 5251/MUM/2015 5 confirmed by the learned CIT(A) without proper appreciation of facts. The learned counsel of the assessee has filed before us sample of invoices of professional income received during the year along with corresponding professional expenses which do not give the ramification of the transactions. The assessee should file complete invoices of professional income received during the year along with corresponding professional expenses .In view of the above, the order of the learned CIT(A) on the above issue is set aside and the case is restored the file of the AO to make a fresh assessment as per the provisions of the Act after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Freewill Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 1 March, 2017

We further find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) P. Ltd (2009) 310 ITR 306 (Bom) after considering the CBDT Circular No.6-P, Dt. 6th July, 1968 has held that no disallowance of expense 10 ITA No.724/PUN/2014 AY.No.2010-11 can be made when the person to whom the payment is made is also assessed at higher rate and there is no evasion of tax. Considering the aforesaid facts and relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we are of the view that in the present case, no disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(2)(b) is called for and therefore direct its deletion. Thus, this ground is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Mohanlal Mehta, Mumbai vs Ito 19(1)(1), Mumbai on 1 September, 2017

7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. First of all, the AO has charged interest by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. According to us, the interest cannot be charged rather interest can be disallowed on the loan taken and that also on the amount which has been diverted for interest free advances. Secondly, the CIT(A) was of the view that interest paid to family Members @ 18%, is higher and he restricted the interest @ 12% and enhance the assessment from Rs. 3,77,342/- to Rs. 9,47,460/-. We find that the CIT(A) has not given any reason for enhancing the income and there is no indication as to how he has applied the provision of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P.) Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bombay), wherein it is held as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next