Pages

Thursday, August 13, 2015

ITR Volume 376 : Part 1 (Issue dated : 10-8-2015)

 

INCOME TAX REPORTS (ITR)

ONLINE EDITION

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

HIGH COURT

Business income --Capital gains--Long-term capital gains--Short-term capital gains--Gains from share transactions--Assessable as short-term and long-term capital gains--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v. Nita Madhu Patel (Guj) . . . 107

Capital or revenue expenditure --Expenditure incurred on filling up pond--Advantage for the enduring benefit of business of assessee--Capital expenditure--Income-tax Act, 1961--Budge Budge Co. Ltd. v. CIT (Cal) . . . 101

Depreciation --Suspension of work--Lock-out--No malice in suspension of work--Plant lying ready for use--Assessee entitled to depreciation--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 32-- Budge Budge Co. Ltd. v. CIT (Cal) . . . 101

Search and seizure --Assessment in search cases--Undisclosed income--Voluntary offer on account of suppression of professional receipts--Payment made to third party outside books of account--Assessee trying to correlate transaction with surplus balance of cash available--No direct presumption that assessee made investment to that extent from available cash balance--Addition to that extent justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 153A-- Prakash K. Kankariya v. Joint CIT (Bom) . . . 110

 

PRINT EDITION

ITR Volume 376 : Part 1 (Issue dated : 10-8-2015)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

HIGH COURTS

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal --Powers--Power to extend stay of demand beyond period of three hundred and sixty-five days--Tribunal to pass speaking order on each application and record satisfaction--If Revenue aggrieved by such extension in a particular case--Revenue can challenge before High Court--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254(2A)-- Deputy CIT (TDS) v.Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (Guj) . . . 23

----Powers of Tribunal--Constitutional validity of provisions--Power to grant stay of proceedings--Amendment of section 245 by Finance Act, 2008, empowering Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days even if delay not attributable to assessee--Provision violative of article 14 of Constitution--Provision struck down--Tribunal has power to grant extension of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254--Constitution of India, art. 14-- Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 87

----Power of Tribunal to grant stay--Limited to total period of three hundred and sixty-five days from date of initial stay--Assessee’s appeal listed for hearing but not taken up for reasons not attributable to assessee--Stay continued till disposal of appeal--Tribunal directed to expedite disposal of appeal--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254(2A)-- New Delhi Television Ltd.v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 51

----Rectification of mistakes--Powers--Power to rectify any mistake apparent from record and make amendments--Order of Tribunal challenged in higher court--No bar either on assessee or on Revenue to invoke power of rectification--Principle of judicial propriety has no application--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254(2)-- R. W. Promotions P. Ltd. v. ITAT (Bom) . . . 126

----Remand--Entire matter relating to assessments considered by Assessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel--Remand to be made to Dispute Resolution Panel and not Assessing Officer--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254-- Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (Delhi) . . . 46

Assessment --Additional tax--Adjustment made by assessee correct according to law on date of filing return--Subsequent Supreme Court decision not permitting adjustment--Additional tax not automatic--Additional tax could not be levied--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 143(1)(a), (1A)-- Deputy CIT (Assessment) v. Surat Electricity Company Ltd. (Guj) . . . 121

Business --Business income--Cessation of liability--Amount claimed to be loan--Forfeiture of loan--No deduction of such amount--Amount not assessable under section 41(1)--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 41(1)-- CIT v. Velocient Technologies Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 131

Cash credits --Amount shown as loan--Burden of proof on assessee to prove genuineness of transaction--No evidence that amount received as loan--Addition of amount to income under section 68--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 68-- CIT v. Velocient Technologies Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 131

Exemption --Educational institution--One of objects clauses providing trust could run business--No finding recorded that predominant object of trust to do business--Trust entitled to exemption--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10(23C)(vi)-- Harf Charitable Trust (Regd.), Malerkotla v. Chief CIT (P&H) . . . 110

Export --Special deduction--Assessee investing for a short period funds not immediately needed in regular business of export --Interest earned from such investment--No direct and proximate nexus--Assessable as “Income from other sources†--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80HHC-- Reliance Trading Corporation v. ITO [FB] (Raj) . . . 53

----Special deduction--Earning of income convertible from foreign exchange by way of interest--Not a test for determining whether deduction is allowable in respect of income derived from profits retained for export business--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80HHC--Reliance Trading Corporation v. ITO [FB] (Raj) . . . 53

----Special deduction--Insertion of sub-section (4B) excluding interest for purposes of section 80HHC--Will affect deduction of interest under section 80HHC for period prior to amendment--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80HHC-- Reliance Trading Corporation v. ITO [FB] (Raj) . . . 53

Loss --Business loss--Loss on sale of debentures--Finding that transactions of purchase and sale of debentures genuine--Loss deductible--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT v.Abhinandan Investment Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 153

Penalty --Concealment of income--Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income--Seized record showing assessee making payment to U. P. Distillers Association--Omission on part of assessee to answer question as regards payment--Presumption of concealment of income--Assessee disclosing additional income only after investigation by Director of Income-tax with certain evidence--Levy of penalty justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c)-- CIT v.Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. (Cal) . . .1

Reassessment --Grounds for reassessment--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Failure to disclose details of transaction during assessment proceedings--Reassessment proceedings valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- CIT v. Velocient Technologies Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 131

----Notice--Validity--Restructuring arrangement between assessee-company and its subsidiary--Unexpired value of contracts transferred to subsidiary in exchange for shares--Assessment of income subsequent to transaction after enquiry by Assessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel--Subsequent reassessment proceedings on ground that transaction gave rise to capital gains--Change of opinion--Reassessment proceedings not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Lahmeyer Holding GmbH v. Deputy DIT (Delhi) . . . 70

 

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Constitution of India :

Art. 14 --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Powers of Tribunal--Constitutional validity of provisions--Power to grant stay of proceedings--Amendment of section 245 by Finance Act, 2008, empowering Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days even if delay not attributable to assessee--Provision violative of article 14 of Constitution--Provision struck down--Tribunal has power to grant extension of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases-- Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 87

Income-tax Act, 1961 :

S. 10(23C)(vi) --Exemption--Educational institution--One of objects clauses providing trust could run business--No finding recorded that predominant object of trust to do business--Trust entitled to exemption-- Harf Charitable Trust (Regd.), Malerkotla v. Chief CIT (P&H) . . . 110

S. 41(1) --Business--Business income--Cessation of liability--Amount claimed to be loan--Forfeiture of loan--No deduction of such amount--Amount not assessable under section 41(1)-- CIT v. Velocient Technologies Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 131

S. 68 --Cash credits--Amount shown as loan--Burden of proof on assessee to prove genuineness of transaction--No evidence that amount received as loan--Addition of amount to income under section 68--Justified-- CIT v. Velocient Technologies Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 131

S. 80HHC --Export--Special deduction--Assessee investing for a short period funds not immediately needed in regular business of export --Interest earned from such investment--No direct and proximate nexus--Assessable as “Income from other sources†-- Reliance Trading Corporation v. ITO [FB] (Raj) . . . 53

----Export--Special deduction--Earning of income convertible from foreign exchange by way of interest--Not a test for determining whether deduction is allowable in respect of income derived from profits retained for export business-- Reliance Trading Corporation v. ITO [FB] (Raj) . . . 53

----Export--Special deduction--Insertion of sub-section (4B) excluding interest for purposes of section 80HHC--Will affect deduction of interest under section 80HHC for period prior to amendment--Reliance Trading Corporation v. ITO [FB] (Raj) . . . 53

S. 143(1)(a), (1A) --Assessment--Additional tax--Adjustment made by assessee correct according to law on date of filing return--Subsequent Supreme Court decision not permitting adjustment--Additional tax not automatic--Additional tax could not be levied-- Deputy CIT (Assessment) v. Surat Electricity Company Ltd. (Guj) . . . 121

S. 147 --Reassessment--Grounds for reassessment--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Failure to disclose details of transaction during assessment proceedings--Reassessment proceedings valid-- CIT v. Velocient Technologies Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 131

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Restructuring arrangement between assessee-company and its subsidiary--Unexpired value of contracts transferred to subsidiary in exchange for shares--Assessment of income subsequent to transaction after enquiry by Assessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel--Subsequent reassessment proceedings on ground that transaction gave rise to capital gains--Change of opinion--Reassessment proceedings not valid-- Lahmeyer Holding GmbH v. Deputy DIT (Delhi) . . . 70

S. 148 --Reassessment--Grounds for reassessment--Failure to disclose material facts necessary for assessment--Failure to disclose details of transaction during assessment proceedings--Reassessment proceedings valid-- CIT v. Velocient Technologies Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 131

----Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Restructuring arrangement between assessee-company and its subsidiary--Unexpired value of contracts transferred to subsidiary in exchange for shares--Assessment of income subsequent to transaction after enquiry by Assessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel--Subsequent reassessment proceedings on ground that transaction gave rise to capital gains--Change of opinion--Reassessment proceedings not valid-- Lahmeyer Holding GmbH v. Deputy DIT (Delhi) . . . 70

S. 254 --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Powers of Tribunal--Constitutional validity of provisions--Power to grant stay of proceedings--Amendment of section 245 by Finance Act, 2008, empowering Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days even if delay not attributable to assessee--Provision violative of article 14 of Constitution--Provision struck down--Tribunal has power to grant extension of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases-- Pepsi Foods P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 87

----Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Remand--Entire matter relating to assessments considered by Assessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel--Remand to be made to Dispute Resolution Panel and not Assessing Officer-- Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. v. Director of Income-tax (Delhi) . . . 46

S. 254(2) --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Rectification of mistakes--Powers--Power to rectify any mistake apparent from record and make amendments--Order of Tribunal challenged in higher court--No bar either on assessee or on Revenue to invoke power of rectification--Principle of judicial propriety has no application-- R. W. Promotions P. Ltd. v. ITAT (Bom) . . . 126

S. 254(2A) --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Power of Tribunal to grant stay--Limited to total period of three hundred and sixty-five days from date of initial stay--Assessee’s appeal listed for hearing but not taken up for reasons not attributable to assessee--Stay continued till disposal of appeal--Tribunal directed to expedite disposal of appeal-- New Delhi Television Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Delhi) . . . 51

----Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Powers--Power to extend stay of demand beyond period of three hundred and sixty-five days--Tribunal to pass speaking order on each application and record satisfaction--If Revenue aggrieved by such extension in a particular case--Revenue can challenge before High Court-- Deputy CIT (TDS) v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (Guj) . . . 23

S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Concealment of income--Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income--Seized record showing assessee making payment to U. P. Distillers Association--Omission on part of assessee to answer question as regards payment--Presumption of concealment of income--Assessee disclosing additional income only after investigation by Director of Income-tax with certain evidence--Levy of penalty justified-- CIT v. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. (Cal) . . .1

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: CA RAJU SHAH <shahmars@hotmail.com>

Monday, August 10, 2015

Fwd: Link of Rachnatmak Sankalp

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rachnatmak Sankalp <sankalprachnatmak@yahoo.com>
Date: 2015-08-09 18:07 GMT+05:30
Subject: Link of Rachnatmak Sankalp
To:


"इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ चार्टर्ड एकाउंटेंट्स के पूर्व प्रेसीडेंट सुनील तलति ने अपने पार्टनर मनीष बक्षी को 'निपटा' देने के साथ-साथ अपने बेटे अनिकेत तलति को दोतरफा रूप से 'सुरक्षित' कर लेने के लिए चाल तो बड़ी ऊँची चली है, लेकिन अनिकेत तलति को रीजनल काउंसिल का चुनाव जितवाने का पेंच उनके सामने अभी फँसा भी हुआ है" शीर्षक रिपोर्ट पढ़ने के लिए Please click the Link : http://rachnatmaksankalp.blogspot.in/2015/08/blog-post_9.html


Friday, August 7, 2015

Three Imp Verdicts On TDS Deduction, TDS Disallowance And Bogus Purchases/ Sales

Dear Subscriber,

 

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


Japan Airlines Co. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

S. 194-I: In deciding whether a payment is for "use of land", the substance of the transaction has to be seen. If the payment is for a variety of services and the use of land is minor, the payment cannot be treated as "rent"

When the airlines pay for these charges, treating such charges as charges for 'use of land' would be adopting a totally naïve and simplistic approach which is far away from the reality. We have to keep in mind the substance behind such charges. When matter is looked into from this angle, keeping in view the full and larger picture in mind, it becomes very clear that the charges are not for use of land per se and, therefore, it cannot be treated as 'rent' within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Act


CIT vs. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd (Kerala High Court)

S. 40(a)(ia)/ 194C/ 194J: Deduction u/s 194C instead of u/s 194J renders the shortfall liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)

The expression "tax deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B" occurring in Section 40(a)(ia) has to be understood as tax deductible at source under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Therefore, as in this case, if tax is deductible under Section 194J but is deducted under Section 194C, such a deduction would not satisfy the requirements of Section 40(a)(ia). The latter part of this Section that such tax has not been deducted, again refers to the tax deducted under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Thus, a cumulative reading of this provision, therefore, shows that deduction under a wrong provision of law will not save an assessee from Section 40(a)(ia)


ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

Bogus sales and purchases: Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and the addition has to be deleted in toto

The reassessment order is as a result of violation of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby cancel the same


Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

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

Latest:

Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Action of the ITAT in disregarding its own order without reason and remanding matter to AO for fresh consideration is "arbitrary" and "failure to perform basic judicial function" and a "lapse" which should not occur again

__._,_.___

Judgments and Infomration [3 Attachments]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dipak Shah djshah1944@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs]
 
[Attachment(s) from Dipak Shah djshah1944@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] included below]



ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

by editor
The reassessment order is as a result of violation of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby cancel the same

ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 6, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Bogus sales and purchases: Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and the addition has to be deleted in toto
(i) The assessment was reopened on the basis of the statement of Shri Hiten L. Rawal, the proprietor of M/s Zalak Impex. In this statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, Shri Rawal confessed to have provided accommodation entries in the form of sales and purchases, to various parties. The assessee was stated to have obtained bills for non-existing parties, amounting to Rs. 4,09,12,718, during the year under consideration. It remains undisputed that the assessee was never provided any opportunity to cross examine Shri Hiten L. Rawal, though he specifically asked for such cross examination. On the other hand, the burden was sought to be shifted on the assessee by the A.O., by asking him to produce Shri Rawal, even though it was the A.O. who had relied on the statement of Shri Rawal, without either confronting this statement to the assessee, or providing opportunity to the assessee to cross examine Shri Rawal. Therefore, the reassessment order is as a result of violation of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby cancel the same. As a consequence, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is also cancelled in toto.
(ii) Further, even otherwise, before the A.O., the assessee had contended that the assessee being in an export promotion zone, the movement of its goods is controlled and customs approved; that the purchases being approved purchases, there was no question of their being bogus purchases. The assessee enclosed the custom approved invoices in respect of purchases from Zalak Impex. As per these invoices, the goods purchased had been verified and approved by the Customs Authority. This clearly shows that the goods had actually been purchased and received by the assessee. As such, these purchases could not have, by any stretch of imagination, been treated as bogus purchases. It is also noteworthy that the payments made by the assessee to Zalak Impex were through account payee cheques only. Neither of the Taxing Authorities, however, took these invoices into consideration and wrongly held the assessee's purchases from Zalak Impex to be bogus purchases. Nothing has been brought on record to show that these invoices were self made or fabricated. Moreover, the comparative chart of purchases made during the year and the selling price has not been refuted and this also goes to prove the theory of bogus bills and accommodation entries to be wrong. Therefore, the order under appeal is a result of complete misreading and non-reading of cogent documentary evidence brought on record by the assessee. For this reason also, along with the reason that the sales made by the assessee were never questioned, the addition is deleted in toto.

Related Judgements

  1. ACIT vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITAT Mumbai) 
    If the addition made by the A.O. is accepted, then G.P. Ratio of the appellant during the present A.Y.will become abnormally high and therefore that is not acceptable because it onus of the A.O. by bringing adequate material on record to prove that such a high G.P. ratio exists…
  2. DCIT vs. Rajeev G. Kalathil (ITAT Mumbai) 
    S. 68: Fact that alleged supplier is not traceable and has been termed a "hawala dealer" by the VAT authorities is not sufficient to treat the purchases as "bogus"
    The fact that the supplier is declared as a "Hawala dealer" by the VAT department is a good starting point…
  3. Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
    As per our considered view, since the purchases so made were not sold by the assessee, the AO was not justified in estimating 15% profit on such bogus purchases. However, such bogus purchases/expenses were going to reduce the assessee's profits by the equal amount of such expenses and not…
  4. Ramesh Kumar & Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
    The AO has made the addition as some of the suppliers of the assessee were declared Hawala dealer by the Sales tax Department. This may be a good reason for making further investigation but the AO did not make any further investigation and merely completed the assessment on suspicion….
  5. Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
    (i) A perusal of the orders passed by the tax authorities would show that they have suspected the genuineness of the purchases only for the reason that the above said five parties were not available in the given addresses. It…Read more ›

CIT vs. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd (Kerala High Court)

by editor
The expression "tax deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B" occurring in Section 40(a)(ia) has to be understood as tax deductible at source under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Therefore, as in this case, if tax is deductible under Section 194J but is deducted under Section 194C, such a deduction would not satisfy the requirements of Section 40(a)(ia). The latter part of this Section that such tax has not been deducted, again refers to the tax deducted under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Thus, a cumulative reading of this provision, therefore, shows that deduction under a wrong provision of law will not save an assessee from Section 40(a)(ia)

CIT vs. PVS Memorial Hospital Ltd (Kerala High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 6, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06, 2006-07
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia)/ 194C/ 194J: Deduction u/s 194C instead of u/s 194J renders the shortfall liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)
The assessee, a hospital, entered into an agreement with M/S Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited by which, the latter had undertaken to perform various professional services in the assessee's hospital. On the payments made, the assessee deducted tax at the rate of 2% under Section 194C. However, assessment was completed on the basis that tax deductible was at 5% as prescribed under Section 194J and the entire tax in this regard was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia)of Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment and the Tribunal also rejected the appeal filed by the assessee concerning the assessment year 2005-2006. However, in 2006-2007, the Tribunal followed the Calcutta High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.K.Tekriwal [2014] 361 ITR 432 (Cal) and held that where tax is deducted by the assessee, even if it is under a wrong provision of law, as in this case, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked. On appeal to the High Court HELD dissenting from Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.K.Tekriwal [2014] 361 ITR 432 (Cal):
(i) As per these provisions of the agreement, M/S Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre had undertaken to render professional services to the assessee and this was not a case where they were undertaking a contract work. If that be so, tax was deductible under Section 194J and not under Section 194C as done by the assessee.
(ii) Section 40(a)(ia) (supra) is not a charging Section but is a machinery Section and such a provision should be understood in such a manner that the provision is workable. The expression "tax deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B" occurring in the Section has to be understood as tax deductible at source under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Therefore, as in this case, if tax is deductible under Section 194J but is deducted under Section 194C, such a deduction would not satisfy the requirements of Section 40(a)(ia). The latter part of this Section that such tax has not been deducted, again refers to the tax deducted under the appropriate provision of Chapter XVII-B. Thus, a cumulative reading of this provision, therefore, shows that deduction under a wrong provision of law will not save an assessee from Section 40(a)(ia).
(iii) In so far as the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.K.Tekriwal [2014] 361 ITR 432 (Cal), which was relied on by the Tribunal is concerned, with great respect, for the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to agree with the views that if tax is deducted even under a wrong provision of law, Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked.

Related Judgements

  1. Bapushaeb Nanasaheb Dhumal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 
    Failure to deduct or deposit tax as per s. 194C or Chapter-XVII makes the assessee liable to the consequences provided under the said Chapter-XVII. However, s. 40(a)(ia) is in addition to Chapter XVII. S. 40(a)(ia)(A) provides that if tax is deducted during the last month of the previous…
  2. DCIT vs. Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) 
    (i) As per provisions of section 132B of the Act the assets seized u/s 132 or requisitioned u/s 132A may be adjusted towards the amount of any "existing liability". The Explanation 2 to section 132B of the Act inserted by…Read more ›
  3. CIT vs. Kei Industries Ltd (Delhi High Court) 
    The Act of Parliament in consciously retaining this section in Chapter III indicates its intention that the nature of relief continues to be an exemption. Chapter VII deals with the incomes forming part of the total income on which no income-tax is payable. These are the incomes which are…
  4. CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corp (Delhi High Court) 
    Section 194C (TDS for "work") and Section 194J (TDS of income from "professional services"- the latter expression defined expansively by Section 194J (3) Explanation (a)). Neither provision obliges the person making the payment to deduct anything from contractual payments such as those made for reimbursement of expenses, other than…
  5. Dedicated Health Care Services TPA vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) 
    S. 194J requires tax to be deducted at source when payment of any sum is made to a "resident" by way of "fees for professional services". The term "professional services" is defined in Explanation (a) to mean services rendered by a person inter alia in the course of carrying…

Japan Airlines Co. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

by editor
When the airlines pay for these charges, treating such charges as charges for 'use of land' would be adopting a totally naïve and simplistic approach which is far away from the reality. We have to keep in mind the substance behind such charges. When matter is looked into from this angle, keeping in view the full and larger picture in mind, it becomes very clear that the charges are not for use of land per se and, therefore, it cannot be treated as 'rent' within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Act

Japan Airlines Co. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 6, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 194-I: In deciding whether a payment is for "use of land", the substance of the transaction has to be seen. If the payment is for a variety of services and the use of land is minor, the payment cannot be treated as rent"
The Supreme Court had to consider the conflict of judicial opinion between the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Japan Airlines Co 325 ITR 298 (Del) and that of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Singapore Airlines Ltd 358 ITR 237 (Mad) on the question whether landing/ parking charges paid by an airline company to the AAI were payments for a contract of work under Section 194-C and not in the nature of 'rent' as defined in Section 194-I. The Delhi High Court decided the issue in favour of the department following its earlier decision in the case of United Airlines v. CIT 287 ITR 281. It took the view that the term 'rent' as defined in Section 194-I had a wider meaning than 'rent' in the common parlance as it included any agreement or arrangement for use of land. The High Court further observed that the use of land began when the wheels of an aircraft touched the surface of the airfield and similarly, there was use of land when the aircraft was parked at the airport. However, the Madras Hih Court dissented from the view of the Delhi High Court. HELD by the Supreme Court reversing the Delhi High Court and affirming the Madras High Court:
(i) From the reading of s. 194-I, it becomes clear that TDS is to be made on the 'rent'. The expression 'rent' is given much wider meaning under this provision than what is normally known in common parlance. In the first instance, it means any payment which is made under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy. Once the payment is made under lease, sub-lease or tenancy, the nomenclature which is given is inconsequential. Such payment under lease, sub-lease and/or tenancy would be treated as 'rent'. In the second place, such a payment made even under any other 'agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building' would also be treated as 'rent'. Whether or not such building is owned by the payee is not relevant. The expressions 'any payment', by whatever name called and 'any other agreement or arrangement' have the widest import. Likewise, payment made for the 'use of any land or any building' widens the scope of the proviso;
(ii) The charges which are fixed by the AAI for landing and take-off services as well as for parking of aircrafts are not for the 'use of the land'. That would be too simplistic an approach, ignoring other relevant details which would amply demonstrate that these charges are for services and facilites offered in connection with the aircraft operation at the airport. There are various international protocols which mandate all such authorities manning and managing these airports to construct the airports of desired standards which are stipulated in the protocols. The services which are required to be provided by these authorities, like AAI, are aimed at passengers' safety as well as on safe landing and parking of the aircrafts. Therefore, it is not mere 'use of the land'. On the contrary, it is the facilities, that are to be compulsarily offered by the AAI in tune with the requirements of the protocol, which is the primary focus;
(iii) When the airlines pay for these charges, treating such charges as charges for 'use of land' would be adopting a totally naïve and simplistic approach which is far away from the reality. We have to keep in mind the substance behind such charges. When matter is looked into from this angle, keeping in view the full and larger picture in mind, it becomes very clear that the charges are not for use of land per se and, therefore, it cannot be treated as 'rent' within the meaning of Section 194-I of the Act;
(iv) However, the reason given by the Madras High Court that the words 'any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land or any building' have to be read ejusdem generic and it should take it colour from the earlier portion of the definition namely "lease, sub-lease and tenancy" and to thereby, limit the ambit of words 'any other agreement or arrangement' is clearly fallacious. A bare reading of the definition of 'rent' contained in explanation to Section 194-I would make it clear that in the first place, the payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy which is to be treated as 'rent'. That is rent in traditional sense. However, second part is independent of the first part which gives much wider scope to the term 'rent'. As per this whenever payment is made for use of any land or any building by any other agreement or arrangement, that is also to be treated as 'rent'. Once such a payment is made for use of land or building under any other agreement or arrangement, such agreement or arrangement gives the definition of rent of very wide connotation. To that extent, High Court of Delhi appears to be correct that the scope of definition of rent under this definition is very wide and not limited to what is understood as rent in common parlance. It is a different matter that the High Court of Delhi did not apply this definition correctly to the present case as it failed to notice that in substance the charges paid by these airlines are not for 'use of land' but for other facilities and services wherein use of the land was only minor and insignificant aspect. Thus it did not correctly appreciate the nature of charges that are paid by the airlines for landing and parking charges which is not, in substance, for use of land but for various other facilities extended by the AAI to the airlines. Use of land, in the process, become incidental. Once it is held that these charges are not covered by Section 194-I of the Act, it is not necessary to go into the scope of Section 194-C of the Act.

Related Judgements

  1. CIT (TDS) vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd (Bombay High Court) 
    The expression rent would also entail an element of possession. In each of the instances contemplated by the explanation to Section 194-I, we see in them an element of possession, be it land, building (including factory building), land appertaining to a building, plant, equipment, furniture or fittings. The person…
  2. ACIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 
    (i) It is thus clear that in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be…Read more ›
  3. ITO vs. Earnest Towers (P) Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) 
    The purport of section 194 I of the Act is not to bring in its purview payments of any or every kind. Only those payments which are in the nature of "use" of land come within the ambit of section 194 I of the Act. The word "use" is…
  4. DIT vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Delhi High Court) 
    Where the assessee was a company incorporated in the Netherlands and its main activity was operation of aircrafts in international traffic both for transport of passengers and cargo and its income was exempt under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Netherlands and it recovered charges from…
  5. DCIT vs. Tejinder Singh (ITAT Kolkota) 
    There is a distinction between a receipt for transfer of ownership rights in property and a receipt for transfer of tenancy rights in respect of a property because though both are assessable as capital gains, in the case of tenancy rights, the "cost of acquisition" is deemed to be…

Listing agreement compliance no saviour against insider trading, based on unpublished financials

SEBI restrains Chairman and Managing Director ('CMD') of Ramsarup Industries Ltd. ('company') from dealing in securities market for 3-years and directs disgorgement of Rs. 98 lakhs - potential loss avoided by him by violating Insider Trading Regulations; Observes that CMD traded in shares while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information ('UPSI') in form of unaudited financial results when trading window was closed and such notice of closure was intimated to directors and designated employees; Rejects CMD's submission that shares were sold with an intention of complying with Listing Agreement (Cl. 40A) for bringing down promoters shareholding to 75%, holds that "such sale has nothing to do with compliance of Clause 40A and had everything to do with wrongful advantage of UPSI which CMD possessed, leading to the avoidance of potential loss"; Rejects CMD's contention that he was aware of crystallized financial results only when Finance Dept. forwarded results and share sale was 'inadvertent', holds that the top corporate executives are expected to set an example of good behavior and should strictly follow the rules laid down;  Further rejects CMD's submission that shares were sold to help the company by way of extending unsecured loans, states that "it cannot be treated as a mitigating factor and cannot justify or absolve CMD of trading while in possession of UPSI, in violation of provisions of SEBI Act and SEBI PIT Regulations, or the unlawful avoidance of loss made by the Noticee by such sales during the period of prohibition"; Relies on SC ruling in N. Narayanan vs. Adjudicating Officer, SEBI, SAT ruling in Samir Arora Vs. SEBI and Rajiv Gandhi vs. SEBI:SEBI

Order was passed by Mr. S. Raman, Wholetime Member, SEBI.


__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from Dipak Shah djshah1944@yahoo.com [SolapurCAs] | View attachments on the web

3 of 3 File(s)


Posted by: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

ITR (TRIB) Volume 41 : Part 4 (Issue dated : 3-8-2015)

 

ITR'S TRIBUNAL TAX REPORTS (ITR (TRIB))--PRINT AND ONLINE EDITION

ONLINE EDITION

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED

Business income --Remission or cessation of trading liability--Advance written off by creditor of assessee--Advance treated as income of assessee--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 41(1)-- Genre Exports P. Ltd. v . ITO (Mumbai) . . . 16ü

Income --Accrual--Non-resident--Not ordinarily resident--Assessee receiving stock awards under stock awards scheme of American company--Assessee rendering services partly in India and partly in U. S. A.--Portion of stock awards attributable to services rendered in India alone taxable in India--Matter remanded for decision afresh on taxability of amount received from stock awards--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 9-- Anil Bhansali v . ITO (Hyd) . . . 20ü

 

PRINT EDITION

Volume 41 : Part 4 (Issue dated : 3-8-2015)

SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Advance tax --Interest under sections 234B and 234C--Consequential and mandatory--Direction to Assessing Officer to recompute interest chargeable after considering order of main issue--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 234B, 234C-- Syndicate Rythara Sahakara Bank Ltd. v. ITO (Bang) . . . 476

----Interest--Income subject to deduction of tax at source--Interest cannot be levied under section 234B--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 234B-- Marriot International Inc. v . Deputy DIT (International Taxation) (Mumbai) . . . 542

Business expenditure --Deduction only on actual payment--Employees’ provident fund and employees’ State insurance contributions--Assessee submitting that payment made before due date for filing returns--Dates of deposits not available on record--Matter remanded for verification--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO 
(Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Finland--Agreement between assessee and non-resident for provision of services in India--Group of engineers sent by foreign company for rendering supervisory services--Duration of stay of residents of Finland in India not available on record--Whether pre-requisite condition of article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement fulfilled--Matter remanded for verification and to determine disallowance under section 40(a)(i)--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 40(a)(i)--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Finland, art. 15-- Outotec India P. Ltd. v . Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 449

Charitable purpose --Charitable trust--Registration--Trust can have both religious and charitable objects--Commissioner not justified in rejecting application for registration under section 12AA--Registration to be granted--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 12AA-- Gilgal Mission India v . ITO (Chennai) . . . 445

----Computation of income--Claim to depreciation on capital assets--Cost of assets allowed earlier as application of income--Assessee not entitled to depreciation--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 11, 32-- ITO v . Kongunadu Arts and Science College Council (Chennai) . . . 473

Co-operative society --Special deduction--Interest income earned from bank on fixed deposits--Part of business income--Entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80P(2)(a)(i)-- Syndicate Rythara Sahakara Bank Ltd. v . ITO (Bang) . . . 476

Deduction of tax at source --Processing of statement--Fee for default--Change of law--Assessing Officer not permitted to levy fee while processing statement of tax at source prior to June 1, 2015 but authority to pass order separately levying fee under section 234E--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 200A, 234E-- Smt. G. Indhirani v . Deputy CIT 
(Chennai) . . . 439

Firm --Assessment--Debit balance in capital account of partners--No provision for charging interest in partnership deed--Overall balance in capital account would be credit balance--Firm disallowing sum to cover possible disallowance of interest expenditure--No further disallowance called for--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO (Chandigarh) . . . 486

Income --Computation of income--Disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt income--Investment in shares and mutual funds--Rule 8D applicable from assessment year 2008-09--Disallowance proper--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 14A--Income-tax Rules, 1962, r. 8D-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO (Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Interest--Payments for raw materials and components received after four years--Case of trade advance and not necessary to charge interest--Notional interest cannot be charged--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO 
(Chandigarh) . . . 486

Industrial undertaking --Special deduction under section 80-IC--Eligible profits--Offer made by assessee to reduce eligible profits for deduction--Assessee not entitled to challenge--Additions proper--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IC-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO (Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Special deduction under section 80-IC--Income from foreign exchange fluctuation--Whether directly related to business activity--Details not incorporated in assessment order--Matter remanded for verification--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IC-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO(Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Special deduction under section 80-IC--Profits of business--Interest on margin money--Not derived from industrial undertaking and no direct nexus with manufacturing activity--Not eligible for deduction--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IC-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO(Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Special deduction--Assessee starting commercial production from January, 2004 and availing of full deduction at 100 per cent. in earlier five years under section 80-IC--Substantial expansion during financial year 2008-09--Initial assessment year must commence either on commencement of operation or at completion of substantial expansion of existing unit--Assessee entitled to only 25 per cent. deduction from eligible business profits from assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IC-- Hycron Electronicsv . ITO (Chandigarh) . . . 486

Non-resident --Royalty--Assessee undertaking marketing of brand name of group--Payment for sales and marketing services rendered to Indian hotels--Separate legal identity of assessee became indefinite--All advertisement programmes carried out to develop existing brand name of group--Income taxable as royalty--Whether receipts to be taxed as royalty in hands of assessee as representative or any other group company--Matter remanded--Income-tax Act, 1961--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the U. S. A., art. 12-- Marriot International Inc. v . Deputy DIT (International Taxation) (Mumbai) . . . 542

Penalty --Concealment of income--Notice--Show-cause notice issued under section 274 not specifying grounds on which penalty sought to be imposed--Notice invalid--Penalty to be cancelled--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 274, 271(1)(c)-- H. Lakshminarayana v . ITO (Bang) . . . 465

Words and pharses --†Existing†--Meaning of-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO 
(Chandigarh) . . . 486

----†Made available†--Meaning of-- Outotec India P. Ltd. v . Asst CIT 
(Delhi) . . . 449

 

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Finland

Art. 15 --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Finland--Agreement between assessee and non-resident for provision of services in India--Group of engineers sent by foreign company for rendering supervisory services--Duration of stay of residents of Finland in India not available on record--Whether pre-requisite condition of article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement fulfilled--Matter remanded for verification and to determine disallowance under section 40(a)(i)-- Outotec India P. Ltd. v . Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 449

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

Art. 12 --Non-resident--Royalty--Assessee undertaking marketing of brand name of group--Payment for sales and marketing services rendered to Indian hotels--Separate legal identity of assessee became indefinite--All advertisement programmes carried out to develop existing brand name of group--Income taxable as royalty--Whether receipts to be taxed as royalty in hands of assessee as representative or any other group company--Matter remanded--Marriot International Inc. v . Deputy DIT (International Taxation) (Mumbai) . . . 542

Income-tax Act, 1961

S. 11 --Charitable purpose--Computation of income--Claim to depreciation on capital assets--Cost of assets allowed earlier as application of income--Assessee not entitled to depreciation-- ITO v . Kongunadu Arts and Science College Council 
(Chennai) . . . 473

S. 12AA --Charitable purposes--Charitable trust--Registration--Trust can have both religious and charitable objects--Commissioner not justified in rejecting application for registration under section 12AA--Registration to be granted-- Gilgal Mission India v . ITO (Chennai) . . . 445

S. 14A --Income--Computation of income--Disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt income--Investment in shares and mutual funds--Rule 8D applicable from assessment year 2008-09--Disallowance proper-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO
(Chandigarh) . . . 486

S. 32 --Charitable purpose--Computation of income--Claim to depreciation on capital assets--Cost of assets allowed earlier as application of income--Assessee not entitled to depreciation-- ITO v . Kongunadu Arts and Science College Council 
(Chennai) . . . 473

S. 40(a)(i) --Business expenditure--Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Finland--Agreement between assessee and non-resident for provision of services in India--Group of engineers sent by foreign company for rendering supervisory services--Duration of stay of residents of Finland in India not available on record--Whether pre-requisite condition of article 15 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement fulfilled--Matter remanded for verification and to determine disallowance under section 40(a)(i)-- Outotec India P. Ltd. v . Asst. CIT (Delhi) . . . 449

S. 80-IC --Industrial undertaking--Special deduction under section 80-IC--Eligible profits--Offer made by assessee to reduce eligible profits for deduction--Assessee not entitled to challenge--Additions proper-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO 
(Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Industrial undertaking--Special deduction under section 80-IC--Income from foreign exchange fluctuation--Whether directly related to business activity--Details not incorporated in assessment order--Matter remanded for verification-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO(Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Industrial undertaking--Special deduction under section 80-IC--Profits of business--Interest on margin money--Not derived from industrial undertaking and no direct nexus with manufacturing activity--Not eligible for deduction-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO (Chandigarh) . . . 486

----Industrial undertaking--Special deduction--Assessee starting commercial production from January, 2004 and availing of full deduction at 100 per cent. in earlier five years under section 80-IC--Substantial expansion during financial year 2008-09--Initial assessment year must commence either on commencement of operation or at completion of substantial expansion of existing unit--Assessee entitled to only 25 per cent. deduction from eligible business profits from assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO(Chandigarh) . . . 486

S. 80P(2)(a)(i) --Co-operative society--Special deduction--Interest income earned from bank on fixed deposits--Part of business income--Entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)--Syndicate Rythara Sahakara Bank Ltd. v . ITO 
(Bang) . . . 476

S. 200A --Deduction of tax at source--Processing of statement--Fee for default--Change of law--Assessing Officer not permitted to levy fee while processing statement of tax at source prior to June 1, 2015 but authority to pass order separately levying fee under section 234E--Smt. G. Indhirani v . Deputy CIT (Chennai) . . . 439

S. 234B --Advance tax--Interest--Income subject to deduction of tax at source--Interest cannot be levied under section 234B-- Marriot International Inc. v . Deputy DIT (International Taxation) (Mumbai) . . . 542

----Advance tax--Interest under sections 234B and 234C--Consequential and mandatory--Direction to Assessing Officer to recompute interest chargeable after considering order of main issue-- Syndicate Rythara Sahakara Bank Ltd. v . ITO 
(Bang) . . . 476

S. 234C --Advance tax--Interest under sections 234B and 234C--Consequential and mandatory--Direction to Assessing Officer to recompute interest chargeable after considering order of main issue-- Syndicate Rythara Sahakara Bank Ltd. v . ITO 
(Bang) . . . 476

S. 234E --Deduction of tax at source--Processing of statement--Fee for default--Change of law--Assessing Officer not permitted to levy fee while processing statement of tax at source prior to June 1, 2015 but authority to pass order separately levying fee under section 234E--Smt. G. Indhirani v . Deputy CIT (Chennai) . . . 439

S. 271(1)(c) --Penalty--Concealment of income--Notice--Show-cause notice issued under section 274 not specifying grounds on which penalty sought to be imposed--Notice invalid--Penalty to be cancelled-- H. Lakshminarayana v . ITO 
(Bang) . . . 465

S. 274 --Penalty--Concealment of income--Notice--Show-cause notice issued under section 274 not specifying grounds on which penalty sought to be imposed--Notice invalid--Penalty to be cancelled-- H. Lakshminarayana v . ITO
(Bang) . . . 465

Income-tax Rules, 1962

R. 8D --Income--Computation of income--Disallowance of expenditure in relation to exempt income--Investment in shares and mutual funds--Rule 8D applicable from assessment year 2008-09--Disallowance proper-- Hycron Electronics v . ITO
(Chandigarh) . . . 486

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: CA RAJU SHAH <shahmars@hotmail.com>