Month: October 2011

Archive for October, 2011


DCIT vs. M/s. S. K. Tekriwal (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 29, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 40(a)(ia) provides for a disallowance if amounts towards rent etc have been paid without deducting tax at source. It does not apply to a case of short-deduction of tax at source. As the assessee had deducted u/s 194C, it was not a case of “non-deduction” of TDS. If there is a shortfall due to difference of opinion as to which TDS provision would apply, the assessee may be treated as a defaulter u/s 201 but no disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia). (Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy (ITAT Mumbai) followed – included in file)

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) (P) Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 24, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 271G authorizes the levy of penalty if the information/ documents prescribed by s. 92D (3) are not furnished. Rule 10D prescribes a voluminous list of information and documents required to be maintained and it is only in rare cases that all clauses would be attracted. Some of the documents may not be necessary in case of some assessees. Before issuing a notice u/s 92D(3), the AO has to apply his mind to what information and documents are relevant and necessary for determining ALP. A notice u/s 92D(3) is not routine and cannot be casually issued but requires application of mind to consider the material on record and what further information on specific points is required. The notice cannot be vague or call for un-prescribed information. On facts, the TPO issued a notice calling for “information and documents maintained as prescribed u/s 92D r.w. Rule 10Dwithout specifying any particular information under any clause of Rule 10D. The notice was “omnibus”, issued in a casual manner, without examining records nor nature or details of international transactions and showed total lack of application of mind as to what information was required in this case. Even in the penalty order, the exact nature of default was not brought out

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 16, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

There is no finding by the AO that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and that its explanation was not bonafide. Accordingly, the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was a “complete non-starter”. A mere erroneous claim made by an assessee, though under a bonafide belief that, it was a claim which was maintainable in law cannot lead to an imposition of penalty. The claim for deduction was made in a bona fide manner and the information with respect to the claims was provided in the return and documents appended thereto. Accordingly, there is no furnishing of “inaccurate particulars”. Making of an incorrect claim for expenditure does not constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income (Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) followed)

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

ACIT vs. Punjab State Coop & Mktg (ITAT Chandigarh)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

If there is no nexus between borrowed funds and investments made in purchase of shares, disallowance u/s 14A is not warranted (Winsome Textiles 319 ITR 204 (P&H) & Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 followed)

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Limited (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 12, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

It is a pre-requisite that before invoking Rule 8D, the AO must record his satisfaction on how the assessee’s calculation is incorrect. The AO cannot apply Rule 8D without pointing out any inaccuracy in the method of apportionment or allocation of expenses. Further, the onus is on the AO to show that expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for earning tax-free income. Without discharging the onus, the AO is not entitled to make an ad hoc disallowance. A clear finding of incurring of expenditure is necessary. No disallowance can be made on the basis of presumptions (law laid down in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 reiterated)

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. Naishadh V. Vachharajani (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 11, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The Tribunal recorded the finding that in a number of cases the assessee had held the LTCG shares for more than 10 years and that the purchase and sale of shares within a period of one year had been offered as STCG. In the preceding AY, the AO accepted this. As per Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Bom) (SLP dismissed) it is open to an assessee to trade in the shares and also to invest in shares. When shares are held as investment, the income arising on sale of those shares is assessable as LTCG/STCG. Accordingly, the decision of the Tribunal in holding that the income arising on sale of shares held as investment were liable to be assessed as LTCG/STCG cannot be faulted

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Mohair Investment & Trading Co (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 6, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The period of six months provided for imposition of penalty u/s 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order have been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT. The proviso to s. 275(1)(a) extends the period for imposing penalty from six months to one year of the receipt of the CIT (A)’s order after 1.6.2003. The proviso carves out an exception from the main section inasmuch as in cases where no appeal is filed before the ITAT the AO must impose penalty within a period of one year of the date of receipt of the CIT (A)’s order. To read the provision as suggested by the assessee would obliterate the main provision itself. A proviso is merely a subsidiary to the main section and must be construed harmoniously with the main provision. The proviso to s. 275(1)(a) does not nullify the availability to the AO of the period of limitation of six months from the end of the month when the order of the ITAT is received (Rayala Corporation 288 ITR 452 (Mad) followed)

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

In Re Millennium IT Software Ltd (AAR)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 9(1)(vi) & Article 12 define the term “royalty” to include any payment for the use of, or the right to use, a “copyright” of scientific work. Software programmes are a “copyright” and are protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. As the software programme is a “copyright”, any payment received for transferring the right to use it is “royalty” as defined in the Act. The argument that there is a distinction between a “copyright” and a “copyrighted article” is not acceptable because there is no such distinction made either in the Income-tax Act or the Copyright Act. The use of software involves the use of the copyright; the software cannot be divorced from the copyright itself. Accordingly, even a fee for the use of a “copyrighted article” is assessable as “royalty”. (Microsoft/Gracemac 42 SOT 550 (Del) followed; Dassault Systems 322 ITR 125 (AAR) not followed; Tata Consultancy 271 ITR 401 (SC) distinguished)

Posted in AAR, All Judgements

Dell Products vs. Tax East (Norway Court of Appeal)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Under Article 5(5) of the DTAA, an agent is considered a permanent establishment for the principal if two conditions are fulfilled (i) the agent must be “dependent” on the principal and (ii) the agent must have the right to conclude contracts “in the name of” the principal. The question whether the agent has the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the enterprise has to be considered, not from a literal sense whether the contracts are “in the name of the enterprise”, but from a functional sense whether the agent “in reality” binds the principal. The objective of Article 5 (5) is to protect the principle of source taxation, i.e. that the tax shall be due to the country where the revenue was created. This principle would be disregarded if only the commission relationship was considered despite the financial and legal attachment between the agent and the principal being strong. To ask if Dell AS “in reality” binds Dell Products is in accordance with the functional interpretation of Article 5 (5). The “substance” must prevail over the form. The fact that a commissionaire under the Commissionaire Act and the commission agreement does not bind the principal through his sales is not enough to rule out that a permanent establishment does not exist (Vienna Convention, OECD Model Convention Commentary, Commentaries by Klaus Vogel & Arvid Skaar considered, decision of the French Supreme Court in Zimmer that as the commissionaire did not bind the principal, it was not a PE despite dependence on the principal not followed)

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Assuming that a reduction of shares in the manner done by the assessee amounts to a “transfer”, s. 45 is not attracted because there is no “consideration” received by the assessee for the transfer. Unless and until a particular transaction leads to “computation” of capital gains or loss as contemplated by s. 45 & 48, it cannot attract capital gain tax. On facts, the assessee had not received any consideration for reduction of share capital. While the number of shares held by the assessee has reduced to 50%, nothing had moved from the side of the company to the assessee (B. C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC) & Bombay Burmah 147 TR 570 followed)

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal