Month: November 2011

Archive for November, 2011


In Re Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault (AAR)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

On facts, the French company’s (ShanH) only asset were the shares in the Indian company & it had no other business. When its shares were sold, what really passes were the underlying assets and the control of the Indian company. A gain was generated by the transaction. If the transaction is accepted at face value, control over Indian assets and business can pass from hand to hand without incurring any liability to tax in India. Such transactions have to be treated as ineffectual. It is not necessary to ignore the existence of ShanH to come to a conclusion that what is put up is a facade in the context of the tax law and would amount to a scheme for avoidance of tax

C& C Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

A contention/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised before the High Court for the first time in an appeal u/s 260A. Though s. 260A(6) empowers the High Court to “determine any issue which has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal”, the word “determined” means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word “determined” presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. However, as the issue whether the expenditure is capital or revenue was not raised before the Tribunal, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and cannot be entertained (Mahalakshmi Textile Mills 66 ITR 710 (SC) distinguished)

Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

It is wrong to say that an adjustment of refund u/s 245 is not a “recovery” only on the ground that s. 245 is placed in the Chapter of “Refunds”. The term “recovery” is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand. In Circular No. 1914 dated 2.12.1993, even the CBDT has did not regard ‘recovery’ as excluding ‘adjustment’ u/s 245. However, different parameters may apply in considering a request for stay against coercive measures to recover the demand and a stay against refund adjustment. It is permissible for the authority to direct stay of recovery by coercive methods but not grant stay of adjustment of refund. However, when a simple & absolute order of stay of recovery is passed, it bars recover of the demand by way of adjustment of demand. The revenue must be obedient and respect the stay order and not over-reach or circumvent the stay order. No deviancy or breach should be made

CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Indexed cost of gifted assets has to be determined with reference to previous owner The assessee’s daughter purchased a flat on 29.1.1993 at a cost of Rs.50.48 lakhs. She gifted the flat to the assessee on 1.2.2003. The assessee sold

Indian Newspaper Society vs. ITO (TDS) (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 25, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The assessee was assessed at New Delhi. Its PAN & TAN were allotted by the AO at New Delhi. All returns including the TDS returns were filed at New Delhi. Accordingly, there was complete absence of jurisdiction on the part of the AO at Mumbai to proceed against the assessee

ACIT vs. Maersk Global Service Center (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 25, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The TPO was wrong in stating that the assessee has not provided any comparables. The initial prerogative of choosing comparable cases is always that of the assessee because it is the best judge to know the exact services rendered by it and finding the comparable cases from the data base. If the TPO wants to exclude any of such comparables, he has to justify the exclusion by adducing cogent reasons and cannot act on whims and fancies. If the TPO fails to show expressly as to how the cases are not comparable, a presumption has to be drawn that those cases are comparable

CIT vs. The Stock and Bond Trading Company (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 25, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

As the payments made by the assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation was not an account of an offence or which is prohibited by law, the invocation of the Explanation to s. 37 of the Act was not justified

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 25, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

“Full and true disclosure of material facts” means that the disclosure should not be garbled or hidden in the crevices of the documentary material which has been filed by the assessee with the AO. The assessee must act with candor. A full disclosure is a disclosure of all material facts which does not contain any hidden material or suppression of fact. It must be truthful in all respects

CIT vs. M/s K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) (Bombay High Court)

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

The assessment was sought to be reopened on account of retrospective amendment to s. 80HHC introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st April 1998. If the legislature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment

ADIT vs. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 23, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Expl 2 to 9(1)(vi) defines “royalty” to mean consideration for “(v) the transfer of all or any rights in respect of any copyright.” Under the Copyright Act, the term “copyright” means the exclusive right to use the “work” in the nature of cinematography. The question of granting exclusive right to do any work can arise only when such “work” has come into existence. The existence of “work” is a precondition and must precede the granting of exclusive right for doing of such work. Unless the work itself is created, there is no question of a copyright of such work. The result is that there is no copyright in live events and depicting the same does not infringe any copyright. Accordingly, the amount paid for broadcast of live matches is not assessable as “royalty” (clause 314 (220) of the Direct Tax Code Bill, 2010 referred to which proposes to define “royalty” to include “live coverage of any event”)

Top