Pages

Friday, June 27, 2014

ITAT Lays Down Imp Law On Formation Of PE And Attribution Of Profits Thereto

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

Nortel Networks India International Inc vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)

Circumstances leading to formation of PE and estimation of profit attributable therto under Rule 10 explained. Even foreign assessees are liable for interest u/s 234B

Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd, an Indian company, entered into a contract with Reliance Infocom for supply, installation, testing, commissioning of hardware equipment. Immediately thereafter, the Indian company assigned the supply part of the contract to the assessee, a USA company, without any consideration. The Indian company retained the other obligations of the contract. The assessee purchased the equipment from a group company, Nortel Canada, and supplied them to Reliance Infocom. The assessee claimed that it had suffered a loss from the transaction. The AO took the view that the assessee did not have any manufacturing or trading infrastructure or financial or technological capability of its own and that it was only a paper company incorporated for the sole purpose of evading taxes in India. He accordingly held that the Indian company constituted a PE of the assessee and assessed its income under Rule 10 by recasting the global profits to arrive at the percentage of profit likely to have accrued from the Indian operations. He adopted the global gross profit margin percentage as 42.6% and allowed 5% of the turnover as deduction pertaining to other selling general and marketing expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the stand of the AO in principle but held that only 50% of such profits had to be considered to be attributable to the PE. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) The contract entered between the assessee and Reliance Infocom is a turnkey contract, indivisible contract for supply, installation, testing, commissioning etc. Nortel India has undertaken the responsibility for negotiating and securing the contracts. The contract for installation and commissioning was also undertaken by Nortel India. These arrangements show that assessee is getting its work executed through Nortel India. The assessee is merely a shadow company of Nortel Group and for all practical purposes, all the facilities and services available to the Nortel Group of Companies are equally available to the assessee. The hardware supplied through it is installed by Nortel India. The contracts were pre-negotiated by Nortel India. Thus, Nortel India is a fixed place of the business and dependent agent PE of the assessee. The Liaison Office of Nortel Canada is rendering all kinds of services to all the group companies including the assessee. The LO building pertaining to Nortel Canada constitutes fixed place PE of the assessee. The assesee's contention that sales were completed overseas and installation was done under a separate contract is not acceptable. The compensation which has been represented as a sale consideration for the equipment represents the payment for works contract where entire installation and customisation has been carried out in India;

(ii) As regards the estimation of profits attributable to the Indian operations, the accounts of the assessee have no sanctity as they are not audited. The gross trading loss incurred from transaction within the group cannot be explained except for the reason that it has been designed as such to avoid taxation in India. The accounts of the Nortel Group would give a true and correct picture of the profit of the assessee. Though in other cases such as Nokia, Rolls Royce, ZTE Corporation & Huawei Technologies, the profit was limited to 20% to 35%, that is on the facts of those cases. In the present case, from the gross profit computed by reference to the rate applicable to the global accounts of the assessee, further substantial deduction has been allowed for selling general and marketing expenses and also R&D expenses. Thereafter, 50% of the resultant figure has been attributed to PE. This meets the ends of justice;

(iii) As regards the levy of interest u/s 234B, though the assessee is a non-resident whose income is subject to TDS u/s 195, the assessee had always been holding the position that receipts are not taxable in India and so it cannot be absolved from the liability to pay interest u/s 234B (Jacabs Civil Inc 330 ITR 578 (Del) distinguished; Alcatel Lucent (Del) followed)


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Sanjay Aggarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 153A: Addition in a search assessment for a AY which is not pending can be made only if incriminating material is found during search


Section153A: ITAT Explains Important Law On Search Assessments

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

Sanjay Aggarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 153A: Addition in a search assessment for a AY which is not pending can be made only if incriminating material is found during search

The Tribunal had to consider whether in a case where a search is conducted u/s 132 but no incriminating evidence is found, the AO could make an addition u/s 153A of the Act. The assessee relied on All Cargo Global Logistics 137 ITD 287 (SB) (Mum) & Pratibha Industries 141 ITD 151 (Mum) in support of the contention that no addition can be made in respect of concluded assessments on the date of search unless some incriminating material was found during the course of search. The department claimed that the said judgements were wrong in view of SSP Aviation Ltd 252 CTR (Del) 291, Chetan Das Lachman Das 254 CTR (Del) 392 & Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del). HELD by the Tribunal allowing the assessee's plea:

(i) The language of s. 153A has been structured in such a way so as not to permit the making of addition for the assessment year of which the assessment is not pending as on the date of search, without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. It is manifest that a duty is cast on the AO to determine the 'total income' of the assessee for such six assessment years. 'Total income' refers to the sum total of income in respect of which a person is assessable and covers not only the income emanating from declared sources or any material placed before the AO but from all sources including the undeclared ones. However, the second proviso to s. 153A(1) eclipses the afore discussed determination of 'total income' by mandating that while pending assessments relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six years shall abate and that completed assessments shall remain intact. The effect of the second proviso in the entire setting of section is that the assessment for any assessment year which is not pending as on the date of search cannot include an item of income for which no incriminating material was found;

(ii) Anil Kumar Bhatia, where it was held that even if assessment order had already been passed in respect of one or any of the six relevant assessment years either u/s 143(1)(a) or 143(3) prior to the initiation of search, the AO is empowered to reopen those proceedings u/s 153A without any fetters and reassess total income taking note of undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search is distinguishable because there some incriminating material was found in respect of a non-pending assessment. The question as to whether any addition can be made in respect of completed assessments when no incriminating material was found was left open. There are sufficient indirect hints given by the High Court in Anil Kumar Bhatia about not making of any addition in respect of an assessment year for which the assessment is already completed unless some incriminating material is found during the course of search;

(iii) Also, as the Special Bench in All Cargo Global Logistics has decided this issue in this manner, it is not possible for us to deviate from the same. There has to be some consistency in the view taken by the Tribunal. Once a Special Bench has decided a particular issue in a particular manner, then, that becomes binding on all the division benches across the country unless there is a contrary judgment of the Supreme Court or that of some High Court. Accordingly, it is held that no addition can be made for any assessment year u/s 153A, the assessment for which is not pending on the date of search, unless any incriminating material is found in the course of search.

See also Gurinder Singh Bawa (ITAT Mum) in the context of s. 143(1) intimation. See also Article 1 & Article 2

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Kerala Vision Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)

S. 40(a)(ia): If an amount is made taxable by a retrospective amendment, the payer cannot be held liable to deduct TDS on a payment made earlier and to suffer disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)


Two Imp Judgements On S. 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance And S. 263 Revision

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

Kerala Vision Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)

S. 40(a)(ia): If an amount is made taxable by a retrospective amendment, the payer cannot be held liable to deduct TDS on a payment made earlier and to suffer disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)

In view of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 6 by the Finance Act, 2012, the payment made by the assessee as "Pay Channel Charges" constitutes "royalty" as defined in clause (i) of Explanation 2 to s. 9(1) of the Act. However, as the decision of the assessee not to deduct TDS was supported by Asia Sat, the assessee cannot be held to be liable to deduct tax at source by relying on the subsequent amendments made in the Act with retrospective effect (Channel Guide 139 ITD 49 (Mum), Sonata Information Technology & Infotech Enterprises followed)


CIT vs. J. L. Morrison (India) Ltd (Calcutta High Court)

S. 263: The CIT can revise an assessment only if he can show unmistakably that the order of the AO is unsustainable. Fact that the AO has passed a non-speaking order does not mean that he has not applied his mind

(i) If the AO has taken a possible view, it cannot be said that the view taken by him is erroneous nor the order of the AO in that case can be set aside in revision. It has to be shown unmistakably that the order of the AO is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power u/s 263 of the Act


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Download First Report Of The Tax Administration Reform Commission


Thursday, June 26, 2014

Income Tax Return filing- Scope to Violate & Punish under Information Technology Act



After various changes in procedure of E-filing of Income Tax Returns , Now there is big Scope for violation under Information Technology Act and it is very easy to get penalties, punishments and Imprisonment 

Sec 43. Penalty for damage to computer, computer system, etc.-

If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network,- accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium.
Introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network;
damages or causes to be damaged and computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer database or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network;
disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;
denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means;
provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder;
charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system or compute network he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section.- (i) "computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions that are designed –
(a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit date or programme residing within a computer, computer system or computer network; or
(b) by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, compute system, or computer network;
(ii) "computer database" means a representation of information,
knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepare in a formalised manner or have been produced by a computer, computer system or computer network and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network;
(iii) "computer virus" means any computer instruction, information, data or programme that destroys, damages, degrades adversely affects the performance of a computer resources or attaches itself to another itself to another computer resources and operates when a programme, date or instruction is executed or some other even takes place in that computer resource;
(iv) "damage" means to destroy, alter, delete, add, modify or re-arrange any computer resource by any means.

Sec 45. Residuary penalty.-

Whoever contravenes any rules or regulations made under this Act, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided, shall be liable to pay a compensation not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees to the person affected by such contravention or a penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.

66 A Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

( Introduced vide ITAA 2008)
Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
-
a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the or igin of such messages (Inserted vide ITAA 2008) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years and with fine.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "Electronic mail" and "Electronic Mail Message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message]

 66C  Punishment for identity theft. (Inserted Vide ITA 2008)

Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.]

[66D Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource (Inserted Vide ITA 2008)

Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.]

66 E. Punishment for violation of privacy. (Inserted Vide ITA 2008)

Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both





Two Important HC Judgements On s. 2(15) Charities And S. 50C Capital Gains

 Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.


DIT (E) vs. Ahmedabad Management Association (Gujarat High Court)

Proviso to s. 2(15) which denies exemption to a charitable institution carrying on commercial activities does not apply to institutions carrying out relief to the poor, education or medical relief but applies only to those carrying out "advancement of any other object of general public utility"

(iii) On the issue of the Proviso to s. 2(15), the same has been explained in Circular No.11/2008 dated 19/12/2008. From the said Circular it appears that the newly inserted proviso to s. 2(15) of the Act will apply to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility i.e. fourth limb of definition of 'charitable purpose' contained in s. 2(15) and hence such entities will not be eligible for exemption u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities. The Proviso will not apply in respect of the first three limbs of s. 2(15) i.e. relief to the poor; education or medical relief. Thus, where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor; education or medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable purpose' even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of the commercial activities.


Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court)

S. 50C: If the stamp duty valuation is higher than the consideration received, the AO must refer the valuation to the DVO even if there is no request by the assessee

No inference can be made that the assessee has accepted the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar for stamp duty purposes as the fair market value of the property because the assessee has nothing to do in the matter. Stamp duty is payable by the purchaser & it is for the purchaser to either accept it or dispute it. The assessee could not, on the basis of the price fixed by the Sub-Registrar, have claimed anything more than the agreed consideration of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs which, according to the assessee, was the highest prevailing market price. It would follow automatically that his case was that the fair market value of the property could not be Rs.35 lakhs as assessed by the District Sub Registrar. In a case of this nature the AO should, in fairness, have given an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) contemplated u/s 50C. As a matter of course, in all such cases the AO should give an option to the assessee to have the valuation made by the DVO. The valuation by the DVO is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer, the AO, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law.


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest

Dear NAMO Sir, Reforms Have To Start With Tax Laws. We Will Help You

__._,_.___

Wealth Tax :-1. CBDT Notifies Returns 2. Article (Link) on making of Jewellary


CBDT notifies new Wealth Tax Return Form & Rules for Online Filing



CBDT has vide notification No. 32/2014 dated 23.06.2014 prescribed new Wealth Tax Return Form BB wef A.Y. 2014-15 instead of old form BA. CBDT has also prescribed that this form can be filed online with or without digital signature. For certain class of Assessee i.e. Individual/HUF not liable to tax audit e-filing is optional but for other class of Assessees i.e. Individual/HUF liable to audit and Companies  return of net wealth in FORM BBshall be furnished electronically under digital signature. Notification is as follows :-



NOTIFICATION 32/2014

WEALTH‐TAX

Dated-  23rd June, 2014

S.O.1576 (E) .— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ba) and clause (bb) of sub‐section (2) of section 46 read with section 14A and section 14B of the Wealth‐tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Wealth‐tax Rules, 1957, namely:—

1. (1) These rules may be called the Wealth‐tax (1st Amendment) Rules, 2014.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Wealth‐tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "said rules"),—

(i) for rule 3, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:–

"3. Form of return of net wealth. — (1) The return of net wealth referred to in section 14 shall—

(a) in respect of assessment year 2013‐14 and earlier assessment years in the case of individuals, Hindu undivided families and companies, be in Form BA and shall be verified in the manner specified therein.

(b) in respect of the assessment year 2014‐15 and any other subsequent assessment year in the case of individuals, Hindu undivided families and companies be in Form BB and shall be verified in the manner specified therein.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub‐rule (3), for the assessment year 2014‐15 and any other subsequent assessment year, the return of net wealth referred to in sub‐rule (1) shall be furnished electronically under digital signature.

(3) In case of individual or Hindu undivided family to whom the provisions of section 44AB of the Income‐tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) are not applicable, the return of net wealth referred to in sub‐rule (1) may be furnished for assessment year 2014‐15 in a paper form.

(4) The return of net wealth required to be furnished in Form BB shall not be accompanied by a statement showing the computation of the tax payable on the basis of the return, or proof of the tax and interest paid, or any document or copy of any account or form of report of valuation by registered valuer required to be attached with the return of net wealth under any provisions of the Act.

(5) The Director General of Income‐tax (Systems) shall specify the procedures, formats and standards for ensuring secure capture and transmission of data and shall also be responsible for evolving and implementing appropriate security, archival and retrieval policies in relation to furnishing the returns in the manners specified in sub‐rule (2)."

3. In the said rules, in Appendix, after Form BA, the following Form shall be inserted; namely :‐

FORM BB

RETURN OF NET WET WEALTH

[See rule 3(1)(b) of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957]

[F.No.143/1/2014‐TPL]

(J. Saravanan)

Under Secretary, TPL

Note: The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub‐section (ii) vide Notification number S.O. 3384(E), dated the 18th October, 1957 and last amended by Wealth‐tax (Second Amendment) Rules, vide Notification S.O. Number 470 (E) dated the 13th February 2009.


http://taxguru.in/income-tax/cbdt-notifies-wealth-tax-return-form-rules-online-filing.html


Article on Jewellery


Thursday, June 19, 2014

HC : Sandvik lays down "compensation" law, awards interest for decade long payment delay

HC allows writ, directs Revenue to pay 'compensation' for delay of 11 years in payment of interest on refund due to assessee u/s 214; Relies on Sandvik Asia ratio, which held that Revenue entitled to only "tax, interest, penalty etc. within four corners of law "; Any amount collected in excess and if withheld by Revenue beyond statutorily permitted period, would entitle taxpayer to compensation; Apex Court, in Sandvik, extensively considered meaning of the word 'compensation'; Awards 9% interest p.a. for period 1987 to 1998 : Andhra Pradesh HC

The ruling was delivered by division bench of Justice G. Chandraiah and Justice Challa Kodanda Ram.

Advocate P. Muralikrishna argued on behalf of the assessee, while the Revenue was represented by Advocate S.R. Ashok. 

Taxsutra Note:

A three judge bench of SC, in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [TS-491-SC-2013], held that only interest under statute can be claimed by assessees and further held that Sandvik Asia ruling was misquoted. Post this judgement, a SC division bench in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals [TS-165-SC-2014] had set aside the Gujarat HC ruling, which had allowed interest on delayed TDS refund alongwith further payment of running interest @ 9% on interest accrued. However, SC in Tata Chemicals Ltd. [TS-147-SC-2014] allowed Sec. 244A interest to TDS deductor as 'compensation' for excess deduction of tax at source made pursuant to order u/s 195.

The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. [TS-359-HC-2014(AP)]


How to validate digital signature on C or H forms?

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Cost Inflation Index for Financial Year 2014-15

Cost Inflation Index for Financial Year 2014-15

Notification No. 31/2014, Dated: June 11, 2014

S.O. 1498(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (v) of the Explanation to section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (42 of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Direct Taxes published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number S.O. 709(E), dated the 20th August, 1998, namely:-

2. In the said notification, in the Table, after serial number 33 and the entries relating thereto, the following serial number and entries shall be inserted, namely:-

Sl. No.

Financial Year

Cost Inflation Index

(1)

(2)

(3)

"34

2014-15

1024″

F.No.142/3/2014-TPL

(Ashis Mohanty)
Under secretary to Government of India

 


Thursday, June 12, 2014

HC : Upholds ITAT order taxing land development agreement on signing of deed


HC : Upholds ITAT order taxing land development agreement on signing of deed:
HC upholds ITAT's order, capital gains on land transfer taxable in year of entering into development agreement between assessee and developer; Invokes deemed 'transfer' u/s 2(47)(v) with respect to part performance of contract mentioned u/s 53A of Transfer of Property Act (TPA); Rejects assessee's argument of non-receipt of sale consideration as Sec 53A of TPA does not contemplate any payment of consideration; By entering into development agreement and parting with land possession, assessee received right to receive consideration on a later date, being enough to attract exigibility to capital gains tax : Andhra Pradesh HC

The ruling was delivered by division bench of Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Advocate K. Vasanth Kumar argued on behalf of the assessee. 


Taxsutra Note:

In few contrary rulings, Hyderabad ITAT in Fibars Infratech Pvt. Ltd. [TS-14-ITAT-2014(HYD)] and S. Ranjith Reddy [TS-254-ITAT-2013(HYD)] held that capital gains is not taxable in the year in which Development Agreement is executed, absent 'willingness to perform'. Further, Hyderabad ITAT held that proposition laid down in Bombay HC ruling in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia [TS-1-HC-2003(BOM)] that date of Development Agreement is material to decide 'transfer' date cannot be applied to all Development Agreements. 




Three Imp Judgements On S. 153 Time Limit, Form 26AS TDS Credit And S. 271(1)(c) Penalty

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

Gaurav Luthara vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)

S. 153(3) Expl 3/ 267: Benefit of extended period of limitation to pass assessment order pursuant to finding/ direction of appellate authority not available if affected party not heard

U/s 267, the CIT(A) and Tribunal are empowered, while making a change in the assessment of a body of individuals or an association of persons, to direct the AO to amend/ make a fresh assessment on any member of the body or association. Under Explanation 3 to s. 153(3), the time limit for making an assessment in such a case of finding or direction does not apply provided such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed. The opportunity of hearing to the assessee in whose hands income of the assessee in appeal is to be added is a condition precedent for giving any finding adverse to such assessee vis-à-vis the time limits for completion of his assessment, reassessment or recomputations are concerned. That is the unambiguous scheme of Explanation 3 to s. 153(3). If an appellate authority does not do so, the affected assessee can not be put to any disadvantage as far as the statutory time limits for completion of assessments, reassessment or recomputations. An opportunity to be so given should be a specific opportunity and the affected assessee is required to be put to notice on that issue. A general hearing given to the representative of the trusts in question cannot be equated with such specific opportunity to the affected assessee and the affected assessee being put to notice about the conclusions adversely affecting him. The scheme of the Income Tax Act fiercely guards the rule of finality to income tax proceedings, whether in assessment, reassessment, revisions, rectifications or any other proceedings, and once the time limit for that course of action is over, the finality thereto cannot be disturbed except under the specific provisions of the Act. The only thing which can help the cause of the revenue is thus a specific notice of hearing having been given to the assessee before us, as mandated by Explanation 3 to s. 153(3). It is only when the AO can demonstrate that this assessee was given a specific opportunity of hearing, before the appellate order was passed in the cases of the Trust that the impugned assessment order can be treated as legally valid


LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Assessee cannot be denied credit for TDS on the ground of discrepancy in Form 26AS filed by the deductor

Though Form 26AS (r/w r.31AB and ss. 203AA and 206C(5)) represents a part of a wholesome procedure designed by the Revenue for accounting of TDS (and TCS), the burden of proving as to why the said Form (Statement) does not reflect the details of the entire tax deducted at source for and on behalf of a deductee cannot be placed on an assessee-deductee. The assessee, by furnishing the TDS certificate/s bearing the full details of the tax deducted at source, credit for which is being claimed, has discharged the primary onus on it toward claiming credit in its respect. He, accordingly, cannot be burdened any further in the matter. The Revenue is fully entitled to conduct proper verification in the matter and satisfy itself with regard to the veracity of the assessee's claim/s, but cannot deny the assessee credit in respect of TDS without specifying any infirmity in its claim/s. Form 26AS is a statement generated at the end of the Revenue, and the assessee cannot be in any manner held responsible for any discrepancy therein or for the non-matching of TDS reflected therein with the assessee's claim/s. Where so, no doubt a matter of concern, is one which is to be investigated and pursued by the Revenue, which is suitably armed by law there for. The plea that the deductor may have specified a wrong TAN, so that the TDS may stand reflected in the account of another deductee, is no reason or ground for not allowing credit for the TDS in the hands of the proper deductee. The onus for the purpose lies squarely at the door of the Revenue


Toscana Lasts Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

S. 271(1)(c): Fact that assessee has huge carry forward losses and depreciation and filed a nil return suggests that there is no motive or incentive to make a bogus claim in the return

Quantum additions and penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. Penalty cannot be levied for every disallowance made in the assessment order. The assessee has submitted the agreement, debit note for these expenses, ledger account of APR Limited to whom the payments were made. Further, the confirmation from APR Limited was also filed in penalty proceedings. The revenue authorities have not brought anything on record which could prove the non-genuineness of these documents. The facts with regard to these claims were clearly mentioned and disclosed in the return of income. The expenses payable to APR Limited were shown separately by the assessee in the profit and loss account and the same has been also discussed by the auditor in the audit report. Thus, assessee has made a claim which was transparent and bona fide. Assessee has not concealed anything in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be a case of concealment of facts. As far as the filing of inaccurate particulars of income is concerned, the assessee was having huge carry forward losses and depreciation and the return was filed at nil income. In our considered view, there cannot be a motive or incentive for the assessee to make any bogus claim in the return of income. These facts show that whatever claim made by the assessee was under good faith and with the advice of the auditors and the employees. The assessee has furnished an explanation which has not been found false.


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Potla Nageswara Rao vs. DCIT (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

S. 2(47)(v): Transfer under a development agreement takes place on handing over possession. Capital gains are chargeable to tax even if no consideration is received by assessee


Three Important High Court Verdicts On S. 14A Disallowance, S. 271(1)(c) Penalty And ITAT Remand Power


 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgement is available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (P&H High Court)

S. 14A disallowance cannot be made if the assessee has no tax-free income in the year

From the reading of s. 14A of the Act, it is clear that before making any disallowance the following conditions are to exist:- a) That there must be income taxable under the Act, and b) That this income must not form part of the total income under the Act, and c) That there must be an expenditure incurred by the assessee, and d) That the expenditure must have a relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Therefore, unless and until, there is receipt of exempted income for the concerned assessment years (dividend from shares), s. 14A of the Act cannot be invoked (Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H) and Winsome Textile 319 ITR 204 (P&H) followed)


CIT vs. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd (Allahabad High Court)

S. 271(1)(c)/ 271(1B): If, in the assessment order, AO directs initiation of penalty on specific issues but not on others, he is not entitled to levy penalty on the other issues

Undoubtedly, as held in Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC), the AO has to satisfy himself whether penalty proceedings should be initiated or not during the course of assessment proceedings and he is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. However, in the present case there is no direction whatsoever by the AO in respect of the specific head of interest on the SDF loan, on which the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal. This omission in the case of the SDF loan stands in sharp contrast to those items where the AO has specifically directed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Consequently, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the SDF loan


Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

S. 254: If a legal issue is raised (even for the first time) ITAT has the duty to deal with it and cannot remand it to lower authorities

The Tribunal should have answered the legal issue itself. The Tribunal was not prevented in any manner and in law from considering a purely legal issue for the first time, more so, if this legal issue goes to the root of the matter. The issue was an impact and legal effect of a order of amalgamation and winding up of the assessee thereto on the penalty proceedings have been initiated and were continuing. If they were initiated prior to the order of the winding up passed or the scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned, then, whether the subsequent act of a order sanctioning the scheme would permit continuation of the proceedings against an entity or company which is wound up and in terms of the provisions contained in the Act was, thus, a clear legal issue. It should have been answered by the Tribunal, particularly when it had admitted the question or ground and also the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The only two documents which required to be looked into were the scheme of amalgamation and the order passed in pursuance thereof by this Court. If that was the admitted factual position and based on which the legal issue was raised, then, the Tribunal was obliged to answer the legal question. Its omission to answer it, therefore, is vitiated in law. The Tribunal is a last fact finding Court and equally if it could have been approached by the assessee both on law and fact, then, in the given circumstances, the Tribunal should have answered this issue and its failure to do so can safely be termed as not performing its duty in law. The direction to remit and to remand it to the AO is not justified and in the peculiar facts and circumstances noted above


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. UOI (Allahabad High Court)

Assessee cannot be denied credit for TDS on the ground of Form 26AS mismatch because he is not at fault. Non-grant of TDS credit causes harassment, inconvenience & makes the assessee feel cheated. Dept to pay interest + costs of Rs. 25,000


Background material of co-operative program


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: GIRISH KULKARNI <girishkulk@joshikulkarni.co.in>
Date: Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:25 PM


My person observations regarding status of co-operative empanelment in Maharashtra (As per information perceived and understood to me)

1. The panel made in March 2013 is valid. The earlier panel were cancelled at that time.
2. The Auditor who had been appointed in AGM before 30.09.2013 should carry and complete audit before 31.07.2014.
3. All societies including housing societies needs to carry audit from empanelled auditors. 
4. The auditor appointment needs to be done in general meeting. If society wish to appoint auditor after 31.07.2014, the society should obtain prior permission for agenda from DDR. 
5. The audit empanelment will start after issue of Maharashtra Co-operative Rules as per direction of Mumbai Court Decision.
 The empanelment will be for 
a) Proprietory Firm/Individual with 1 year experience.
b) All partnership Firm are also eligible. 
c) Existing auditor will only update the profile.
6. The CAs can use the Audit Report format as per SA 700. You may use the format given in Draft Rule available on WIRC website in co-operative section 2014-15.
7. The auditor who are not on panel at present may not able to carry audit for 2013-14 due to present empanelment status. 

Please refer original Maharashtra Co-operative Act and related Rules and Notifications for better understanding. 

Please click here for related material:

Monday, June 9, 2014

ITR Volume 364 : Part 2 (Issue dated : 9-6-2014)

INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)--PRINT AND ONLINE EDITION

ONLINE EDITION

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED

HIGH COURTS

Exemption --Export--Exemption under section 10B--Computation of exemption--Law applicable--Effect of substitution of sub-section (4) w.e.f. 1-4-2001--Interest on deposits made in banks, sister concerns and exchange earners foreign currency account out of export income--Entitled to exemption under section 10B after 1-4-2001--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10B-- CIT v. Motorola India Electronics P. Ltd. (Karn). . .499

 

PRINT EDITION

ITR Volume 364 : Part 2 (Issue dated : 9-6-2014)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

SUPREME COURT

Exemption --Educational institution--Registration--Rejection of application for certificate on ground entire income not used for educational purposes--Appeal--Supreme Court--Objects of society since amended--Order of High Court set aside and liberty granted to apply for registration afresh for assessment years in question with amended objects--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10(23C)(vi)-- Om Prakash Shiksha Prasar Samiti v. Chief CIT . . . 329

HIGH COURTS

Assessment --Best judgment assessment--Limitation--Failure to issue notice under section 143(2)--Failure to issue notice of hearing before making best judgment assessment--Concurrent finding that assessment ante-dated and time barred--Conclusion reached by Tribunal based on appreciation of pure questions of fact--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 143(2), 144-- CIT v. Amarchand Sharma and Udani (AP) . . . 203

Business expenditure --Disallowance--Payments on which tax deductible at source--Commission--Sales promotion scheme--Incentive offered on case to case basis to stockists/dealers/agents--Relationship between assessee and distributors/stockists was that of principal to principal--Distributors/stockists not acting on behalf of assessee--Not a commission payment within meaning of clause (i) of Explanation below section 194H--No disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia)--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 40(a)(ia), 194H-- CIT v. Intervet India P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 238

----Pharmaceutical company--Deposit made by assessee of excess price charged for drugs over and above price fixed by Government--Statutory liability--Allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 37-- CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (AP) . . . 208

Deduction of tax at source --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Non-resident agent of artistes in foreign countries engaged by assessee to bring foreign artistes to perform in India--No participation of agent in event organised by assessee as an artiste--Agent̢۪s commission not taxable in India--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 201--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and U. K., arts. 7, 18-- Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 227

Depreciation --Factory building--Creche for children of women employees within factory compound--Utilised in the process of manufacturing of products--Entitled to depreciation at ten per cent.--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (AP) . . . 208

Double taxation relief --Mutual agreement procedure--Not relevant for deciding whether permanent establishment existed--Especially where foreign Government expresses reservations on point--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. S. A., art. 27-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme --Condition precedent for consideration of declaration--Pendency of proceedings--Appeal addressed to wrong officer by assessee and not disposed of on technical grounds--Receipt of appeal not denied--Designated authority ought to have intimated officer to return papers to enable assessee to file appeal before appropriate authority--Assessee not informed of its appeal not being accepted--Refusal to grant benefit under Scheme on ground appeal not filed before competent authority--Not justified--Authorities to consider declaration filed by assessee on merits--Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, ss. 88, 89-- Radha Vinyl P. Ltd. v. CIT (AP) . . . 199

Loss --Set off--Advances written off and claimed as capital loss to be carried forward for set off for subsequent years--Advances not given in ordinary course of business--No claim as bad debts--No evidence to show that it was a case of an intercorporate deposit--Loan cannot capital loss--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 2(14), (47)-- Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 244

Non-resident --Permanent establishment--Subsidiary company in India whether permanent establishment--Principles governing--Mutual agreement procedure not conclusive on existence of permanent establishment--No material to hold assessees had fixed place of business in India through which business of enterprise wholly or partly carried on--No finding that assessee had right to use premises belonging to Indian company, or that premises of Indian company were at its disposal--That Indian company provided services to assessee and was dependent for its earning upon assessee or that Indian company did not bear sufficient risk or that Indian subsidiary was reimbursed cost plus 16 per cent. not relevant test--Assignment or sub-contract to Indian company not factor to be applied to determine applicability of article 5(1)--Indian company separate entity and not permanent establishment merely because there was interaction or cross transactions between it and foreign principal--Indian company not authorised or habitually exercising authority to â€Å“conclude†contracts or maintaining stock or merchandise from which it delivered goods or merchandise on behalf of assessee--Transactions between assessee and Indian company at arm’s length and taxed on arm’s length principle--Employees of Indian company not to be treated as employees of assessee--Employees merely performing stewardship services--Indian company not permanent establishment of non-resident assessee--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 9(1)(i)--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. S. A., arts. 5(1), (2), (4), 7-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

----Taxability in India--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements--â€Å“Fees for technical services†--Definition--Scope of--Indian subsidiary company set up to provide services to overseas group entities--Secondment of employees of overseas entities to assist Indian company during initial year to ensure quality control and build skill set of Indian company’s employees--Amounts to provision of technical services and making available technical knowledge--Seconded employees continuing to remain on payroll of overseas entities--Overseas entities paying their salaries and Indian company thereafter reimbursing overseas employers--Reimbursement of salaries was payment for technical services--Payment accrued to overseas entities--Not a case of diversion of income by overriding title--Payments taxable in India and Indian company bound to deduct tax at source thereon--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 195--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. K., art. 13(4)--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Canada, art. 12(4)-- Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 336

Penalty --Concealment of income--Failure to disclose amount received on account of refundable empty bottle deposit either in profit and loss account or in balance-sheet--Concealment detected in search operations--Deliberate concealment on part of assessee--Receipt acknowledged as trading receipt in earlier years--Penalty justified--Unreconciled difference in balance-sheet--No penalty leviable in view wrong entries--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- Kuldeep Wines v. CIT (Appeals) (AP) . . . 195

Reassessment --Change of opinion--Assessee not filing returns and not subjected to regular assessment--Challenge to initiation of reassessment proceedings on ground of change of opinion not available--Mutual agreement procedure adopted and income of assessee partly taxed in India--Justification to initiate reassessment proceedings--Reasons recorded for 2000-01 and subsequent years identical--Reasons for all assessment years other than 2000-01 communicated and assessee aware of reasons for 2000-01--Failure to communicate reasons not prejudicial to assessee and does not affect validity of proceedings--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 143(3), 147, 148-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

----Notice--Notice within four years--Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Windmill--Issue of deduction under section 80-IA raised by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and responded to by assessee--That issue not discussed in assessment order not material--Reopening of assessment on premise that deduction wrongly allowed--Not permissible--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 80-IA(4), 147, 148-- CIT v. Prima Paper and Engineering Industry (Bom) . . . 222

----Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Condition precedent--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Allocation of common expenditure between section 80-IB unit and non-section 80-IB unit disclosed--Deduction allowed after considering material--Notice after four years to withdraw special deduction--Notice not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Lalitha Chem Industries P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 213

----Notice within four years--Export--Exemption--Failure to bring proceeds of export into India within six months from end of assessment year--Assessee declaring its book profits after reducing amount of deduction under section 10AA during original proceedings--Both issues not subject matter of consideration in original assessment proceedings--Reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 10AA, 147, 148-- Eleganza Jewellery Ltd. v. CIT (Bom) . . . 232

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

Non-resident --Long-term capital gains--Rate of tax--Sale of shares in Indian company listed on stock exchange and held for more than 12 months--Tax leviable at lower rate of ten per cent.--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 112(1), prov., 195-- Pan-Asia iGATE Solutions, In re . . . 331

----Taxability in India--Double taxation avoidance--Agreements specific to two contracting countries--Protocol to Agreement providing that India shall limit its taxation at source for items mentioned in accordance with other Agreements--Effect--Applies only to rate or scope--Fees for technical services--â€Å“Make available†clause in other Agreements cannot be imported--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 9(1)(vii), 195--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France, art. 13-- Steria (India) Ltd. , In re . . . 381

----Taxability in India--Fees for technical services--Resident of Sri Lanka appointed as â€Å“resident executive†for Indian branch of U. K. entity for promotion of sales and brand name of employer in Sri Lanka--Job description fitting in with marketing executive not technical service--Payments made by remittance to bank account in Sri Lanka--Services rendered outside India by non-resident--Payments of remuneration and reimbursement of expenses not taxable in India--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 9(1)(vii)--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Sri Lanka, art. 14-- Oxford University Press , In re . . . 251

Perquisite --Superannuation scheme for employees--Defined benefit plan--Contributions to scheme made by employer for all eligible employees in lump sum calculated on actuarial valuation based on several underlying assumptions--Employee does not get vested right at time of contribution to fund by employer--Tax not required to be deducted at source on contribution to superannuation fund--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 10(10CC), 17(2), 192-- The Royal Bank of Scotland, N. V., In re . . . 373

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Canada :

Art. 12(4) --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements--â€Å“Fees for technical services†--Definition--Scope of--Indian subsidiary company set up to provide services to overseas group entities--Secondment of employees of overseas entities to assist Indian company during initial year to ensure quality control and build skill set of Indian company’s employees--Amounts to provision of technical services and making available technical knowledge--Seconded employees continuing to remain on payroll of overseas entities--Overseas entities paying their salaries and Indian company thereafter reimbursing overseas employers--Reimbursement of salaries was payment for technical services--Payment accrued to overseas entities--Not a case of diversion of income by overriding title--Payments taxable in India and Indian company bound to deduct tax at source thereon-- Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 336

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and France :

Art. 13 --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Double taxation avoidance--Agreements specific to two contracting countries--Protocol to Agreement providing that India shall limit its taxation at source for items mentioned in accordance with other Agreements--Effect--Applies only to rate or scope--Fees for technical services--â€Å“Make available†clause in other Agreements cannot be imported-- Steria (India) Ltd. , In re (AAR). . . 381

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Sri Lanka :

Art. 14 --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Fees for technical services--Resident of Sri Lanka appointed as â€Å“resident executive†for Indian branch of U. K. entity for promotion of sales and brand name of employer in Sri Lanka--Job description fitting in with marketing executive not technical service--Payments made by remittance to bank account in Sri Lanka--Services rendered outside India by non-resident--Payments of remuneration and reimbursement of expenses not taxable in India-- Oxford University Press , In re (AAR). . . 251

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and U. K. :

Art. 7 --Deduction of tax at source--Non-resident--Taxability in India--Non-resident agent of artistes in foreign countries engaged by assessee to bring foreign artistes to perform in India--No participation of agent in event organised by assessee as an artiste--Agent̢۪s commission not taxable in India-- Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 227

Art. 13(4) --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements--â€Å“Fees for technical services†--Definition--Scope of--Indian subsidiary company set up to provide services to overseas group entities--Secondment of employees of overseas entities to assist Indian company during initial year to ensure quality control and build skill set of Indian company’s employees--Amounts to provision of technical services and making available technical knowledge--Seconded employees continuing to remain on payroll of overseas entities--Overseas entities paying their salaries and Indian company thereafter reimbursing overseas employers--Reimbursement of salaries was payment for technical services--Payment accrued to overseas entities--Not a case of diversion of income by overriding title--Payments taxable in India and Indian company bound to deduct tax at source thereon-- Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 336

Art. 18 --Deduction of tax at source--Non-resident--Taxability in India--Non-resident agent of artistes in foreign countries engaged by assessee to bring foreign artistes to perform in India--No participation of agent in event organised by assessee as an artiste--Agent̢۪s commission not taxable in India-- Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 227

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. S. A. :

Arts. 5(1), (2), (4), 7 --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Subsidiary company in India whether permanent establishment--Principles governing--Mutual agreement procedure not conclusive on existence of permanent establishment--No material to hold assessees had fixed place of business in India through which business of enterprise wholly or partly carried on--No finding that assessee had right to use premises belonging to Indian company, or that premises of Indian company were at its disposal--That Indian company provided services to assessee and was dependent for its earning upon assessee or that Indian company did not bear sufficient risk or that Indian subsidiary was reimbursed cost plus 16 per cent. not relevant test--Assignment or sub-contract to Indian company not factor to be applied to determine applicability of article 5(1)--Indian company separate entity and not permanent establishment merely because there was interaction or cross transactions between it and foreign principal--Indian company not authorised or habitually exercising authority to â€Å“conclude†contracts or maintaining stock or merchandise from which it delivered goods or merchandise on behalf of assessee--Transactions between assessee and Indian company at arm’s length and taxed on arm’s length principle--Employees of Indian company not to be treated as employees of assessee--Employees merely performing stewardship services--Indian company not permanent establishment of non-resident assessee-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

Art. 27 --Double taxation relief--Mutual agreement procedure--Not relevant for deciding whether permanent establishment existed--Especially where foreign Government expresses reservations on point-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 :

Ss. 88, 89 --Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme--Condition precedent for consideration of declaration--Pendency of proceedings--Appeal addressed to wrong officer by assessee and not disposed of on technical grounds--Receipt of appeal not denied--Designated authority ought to have intimated officer to return papers to enable assessee to file appeal before appropriate authority--Assessee not informed of its appeal not being accepted--Refusal to grant benefit under Scheme on ground appeal not filed before competent authority--Not justified--Authorities to consider declaration filed by assessee on merits-- Radha Vinyl P. Ltd. v. CIT (AP) . . . 199

Income-tax Act, 1961 :

S. 2(14) --Loss--Set off--Advances written off and claimed as capital loss to be carried forward for set off for subsequent years--Advances not given in ordinary course of business--No claim as bad debts--No evidence to show that it was a case of an intercorporate deposit--Loan cannot capital loss-- Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 244

S. 2(47) --Loss--Set off--Advances written off and claimed as capital loss to be carried forward for set off for subsequent years--Advances not given in ordinary course of business--No claim as bad debts--No evidence to show that it was a case of an intercorporate deposit--Loan cannot capital loss-- Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 244

S. 9(1)(i) --Non-resident--Permanent establishment--Subsidiary company in India whether permanent establishment--Principles governing--Mutual agreement procedure not conclusive on existence of permanent establishment--No material to hold assessees had fixed place of business in India through which business of enterprise wholly or partly carried on--No finding that assessee had right to use premises belonging to Indian company, or that premises of Indian company were at its disposal--That Indian company provided services to assessee and was dependent for its earning upon assessee or that Indian company did not bear sufficient risk or that Indian subsidiary was reimbursed cost plus 16 per cent. not relevant test--Assignment or sub-contract to Indian company not factor to be applied to determine applicability of article 5(1)--Indian company separate entity and not permanent establishment merely because there was interaction or cross transactions between it and foreign principal--Indian company not authorised or habitually exercising authority to â€Å“conclude†contracts or maintaining stock or merchandise from which it delivered goods or merchandise on behalf of assessee--Transactions between assessee and Indian company at arm’s length and taxed on arm’s length principle--Employees of Indian company not to be treated as employees of assessee--Employees merely performing stewardship services--Indian company not permanent establishment of non-resident assessee-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

S. 9(1)(vii) --Non-resident--Taxability in India--Double taxation avoidance--Agreements specific to two contracting countries--Protocol to Agreement providing that India shall limit its taxation at source for items mentioned in accordance with other Agreements--Effect--Applies only to rate or scope--Fees for technical services--â€Å“Make available†clause in other Agreements cannot be imported-- Steria (India) Ltd. , In re (AAR). . . 381

----Non-resident--Taxability in India--Fees for technical services--Resident of Sri Lanka appointed as â€Å“resident executive†for Indian branch of U. K. entity for promotion of sales and brand name of employer in Sri Lanka--Job description fitting in with marketing executive not technical service--Payments made by remittance to bank account in Sri Lanka--Services rendered outside India by non-resident--Payments of remuneration and reimbursement of expenses not taxable in India-- Oxford University Press , In re (AAR). . . 251

S. 10(10CC) --Perquisite--Superannuation scheme for employees--Defined benefit plan--Contributions to scheme made by employer for all eligible employees in lump sum calculated on actuarial valuation based on several underlying assumptions--Employee does not get vested right at time of contribution to fund by employer--Tax not required to be deducted at source on contribution to superannuation fund-- The Royal Bank of Scotland, N. V., In re (AAR). . . 373

S. 10(23C)(vi) --Exemption--Educational institution--Registration--Rejection of application for certificate on ground entire income not used for educational purposes--Appeal--Supreme Court--Objects of society since amended--Order of High Court set aside and liberty granted to apply for registration afresh for assessment years in question with amended objects-- Om Prakash Shiksha Prasar Samiti v. Chief CIT (SC). . . 329

S. 10AA --Reassessment--Notice within four years--Export--Exemption--Failure to bring proceeds of export into India within six months from end of assessment year--Assessee declaring its book profits after reducing amount of deduction under section 10AA during original proceedings--Both issues not subject matter of consideration in original assessment proceedings--Reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment-- Eleganza Jewellery Ltd. v. CIT (Bom) . . . 232

S. 17(2) --Perquisite--Superannuation scheme for employees--Defined benefit plan--Contributions to scheme made by employer for all eligible employees in lump sum calculated on actuarial valuation based on several underlying assumptions--Employee does not get vested right at time of contribution to fund by employer--Tax not required to be deducted at source on contribution to superannuation fund-- The Royal Bank of Scotland, N. V., In re (AAR). . . 373

S. 37 --Business expenditure--Pharmaceutical company--Deposit made by assessee of excess price charged for drugs over and above price fixed by Government--Statutory liability--Allowable-- CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (AP) . . . 208

S. 40(a)(ia) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments on which tax deductible at source--Commission--Sales promotion scheme--Incentive offered on case to case basis to stockists/dealers/agents--Relationship between assessee and distributors/stockists was that of principal to principal--Distributors/stockists not acting on behalf of assessee--Not a commission payment within meaning of clause (i) of Explanation below section 194H--No disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia)-- CIT v. Intervet India P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 238

S. 80-IA(4) --Reassessment--Notice--Notice within four years--Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Windmill--Issue of deduction under section 80-IA raised by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and responded to by assessee--That issue not discussed in assessment order not material--Reopening of assessment on premise that deduction wrongly allowed--Not permissible-- CIT v. Prima Paper and Engineering Industry (Bom) . . . 222

S. 112(1), prov. --Non-resident--Long-term capital gains--Rate of tax--Sale of shares in Indian company listed on stock exchange and held for more than 12 months--Tax leviable at lower rate of ten per cent.-- Pan-Asia iGATE Solutions, In re (AAR). . . 331

S. 143(2) --Assessment--Best judgment assessment--Limitation--Failure to issue notice under section 143(2)--Failure to issue notice of hearing before making best judgment assessment--Concurrent finding that assessment ante-dated and time barred--Conclusion reached by Tribunal based on appreciation of pure questions of fact-- CIT v. Amarchand Sharma and Udani (AP) . . . 203

S. 143(3) --Reassessment--Change of opinion--Assessee not filing returns and not subjected to regular assessment--Challenge to initiation of reassessment proceedings on ground of change of opinion not available--Mutual agreement procedure adopted and income of assessee partly taxed in India--Justification to initiate reassessment proceedings--Reasons recorded for 2000-01 and subsequent years identical--Reasons for all assessment years other than 2000-01 communicated and assessee aware of reasons for 2000-01--Failure to communicate reasons not prejudicial to assessee and does not affect validity of proceedings-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

S. 144 --Assessment--Best judgment assessment--Limitation--Failure to issue notice under section 143(2)--Failure to issue notice of hearing before making best judgment assessment--Concurrent finding that assessment ante-dated and time barred--Conclusion reached by Tribunal based on appreciation of pure questions of fact-- CIT v. Amarchand Sharma and Udani (AP) . . . 203

S. 147 --Reassessment--Change of opinion--Assessee not filing returns and not subjected to regular assessment--Challenge to initiation of reassessment proceedings on ground of change of opinion not available--Mutual agreement procedure adopted and income of assessee partly taxed in India--Justification to initiate reassessment proceedings--Reasons recorded for 2000-01 and subsequent years identical--Reasons for all assessment years other than 2000-01 communicated and assessee aware of reasons for 2000-01--Failure to communicate reasons not prejudicial to assessee and does not affect validity of proceedings-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

----Reassessment--Notice--Notice within four years--Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Windmill--Issue of deduction under section 80-IA raised by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and responded to by assessee--That issue not discussed in assessment order not material--Reopening of assessment on premise that deduction wrongly allowed--Not permissible-- CIT v. Prima Paper and Engineering Industry (Bom) . . . 222

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Condition precedent--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Allocation of common expenditure between section 80-IB unit and non-section 80-IB unit disclosed--Deduction allowed after considering material--Notice after four years to withdraw special deduction--Notice not valid-- Lalitha Chem Industries P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 213

----Reassessment--Notice within four years--Export--Exemption--Failure to bring proceeds of export into India within six months from end of assessment year--Assessee declaring its book profits after reducing amount of deduction under section 10AA during original proceedings--Both issues not subject matter of consideration in original assessment proceedings--Reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment-- Eleganza Jewellery Ltd. v. CIT (Bom) . . . 232

S. 148 --Reassessment--Change of opinion--Assessee not filing returns and not subjected to regular assessment--Challenge to initiation of reassessment proceedings on ground of change of opinion not available--Mutual agreement procedure adopted and income of assessee partly taxed in India--Justification to initiate reassessment proceedings--Reasons recorded for 2000-01 and subsequent years identical--Reasons for all assessment years other than 2000-01 communicated and assessee aware of reasons for 2000-01--Failure to communicate reasons not prejudicial to assessee and does not affect validity of proceedings-- Director of Income-tax v. e-Funds IT Solution (Delhi) . . . 256

----Reassessment--Notice--Notice within four years--Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Windmill--Issue of deduction under section 80-IA raised by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and responded to by assessee--That issue not discussed in assessment order not material--Reopening of assessment on premise that deduction wrongly allowed--Not permissible-- CIT v. Prima Paper and Engineering Industry (Bom) . . . 222

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Notice after four years--Condition precedent--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Allocation of common expenditure between section 80-IB unit and non-section 80-IB unit disclosed--Deduction allowed after considering material--Notice after four years to withdraw special deduction--Notice not valid-- Lalitha Chem Industries P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 213

----Reassessment--Notice within four years--Export--Exemption--Failure to bring proceeds of export into India within six months from end of assessment year--Assessee declaring its book profits after reducing amount of deduction under section 10AA during original proceedings--Both issues not subject matter of consideration in original assessment proceedings--Reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment-- Eleganza Jewellery Ltd. v. CIT (Bom) . . . 232

S. 192 --Perquisite--Superannuation scheme for employees--Defined benefit plan--Contributions to scheme made by employer for all eligible employees in lump sum calculated on actuarial valuation based on several underlying assumptions--Employee does not get vested right at time of contribution to fund by employer--Tax not required to be deducted at source on contribution to superannuation fund-- The Royal Bank of Scotland, N. V., In re (AAR). . . 373

S. 194H --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments on which tax deductible at source--Commission--Sales promotion scheme--Incentive offered on case to case basis to stockists/dealers/agents--Relationship between assessee and distributors/stockists was that of principal to principal--Distributors/stockists not acting on behalf of assessee--Not a commission payment within meaning of clause (i) of Explanation below section 194H--No disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(ia)-- CIT v. Intervet India P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 238

S. 195 --Non-resident--Long-term capital gains--Rate of tax--Sale of shares in Indian company listed on stock exchange and held for more than 12 months--Tax leviable at lower rate of ten per cent.-- Pan-Asia iGATE Solutions, In re (AAR). . . 331

----Non-resident--Taxability in India--Double taxation avoidance--Agreements specific to two contracting countries--Protocol to Agreement providing that India shall limit its taxation at source for items mentioned in accordance with other Agreements--Effect--Applies only to rate or scope--Fees for technical services--â€Å“Make available†clause in other Agreements cannot be imported-- Steria (India) Ltd. , In re (AAR). . . 381

----Non-resident--Taxability in India--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements--â€Å“Fees for technical services†--Definition--Scope of--Indian subsidiary company set up to provide services to overseas group entities--Secondment of employees of overseas entities to assist Indian company during initial year to ensure quality control and build skill set of Indian company’s employees--Amounts to provision of technical services and making available technical knowledge--Seconded employees continuing to remain on payroll of overseas entities--Overseas entities paying their salaries and Indian company thereafter reimbursing overseas employers--Reimbursement of salaries was payment for technical services--Payment accrued to overseas entities--Not a case of diversion of income by overriding title--Payments taxable in India and Indian company bound to deduct tax at source thereon-- Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Delhi) . . . 336

S. 201 --Deduction of tax at source--Non-resident--Taxability in India--Non-resident agent of artistes in foreign countries engaged by assessee to bring foreign artistes to perform in India--No participation of agent in event organised by assessee as an artiste--Agent̢۪s commission not taxable in India-- Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Wizcraft International Entertainment P. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 227

S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Concealment of income--Failure to disclose amount received on account of refundable empty bottle deposit either in profit and loss account or in balance-sheet--Concealment detected in search operations--Deliberate concealment on part of assessee--Receipt acknowledged as trading receipt in earlier years--Penalty justified--Unreconciled difference in balance-sheet--No penalty leviable in view wrong entries-- Kuldeep Wines v. CIT (Appeals) (AP) . . . 195