Month: December 2013

Archive for December, 2013


ITO vs. M/s.Theekathir Press (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 27, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 40(a)(ia) TDS Disallowance: View in favour of the assessee should be followed

There is a judicial controversy on whether s. 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts that have already been “paid” or it is confined to amounts that are “payable” as at the end of the year. The Special Bench in Merilyn Shipping and Transports 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (Vizag) and the Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping Services have taken the view that s. 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts remaining “payable” at the end of the previous year and does not apply to amounts already “paid” before the close of the relevant previous year. However, the Calcutta High Court in Crescent Export Syndicates & Md. Jakir Hossain Mondal and the Gujarat High Court in Sikandarkhan N.Tunvar have taken a contrary view that even amounts already “paid” have to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). In such circumstances, the rule of Judicial Precedence demands that the view favourable to the assessee must be adopted as held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192. Following the said fundamental rule declared by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Vector Shipping which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed and it has to be held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts “payable” and not to amounts “paid”

MDLR Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 132: Copy of search warrant should be given to the searched person. Defects in the panchnama do not invalidate the search or the s. 153A assessment proceedings

S. 153A(1) does not make any reference to panchnama or the date of panchnama. A panchnama is not a pre-condition for invoking s. 153A. As regards the argument that the time limit u/s 153B is calculated with reference to the date of the last panchnama, a panchnama was drawn up on the occasion of the search and it referred to documents belonging to the assessee though it did not refer to the assessee by name. The panchnama also does not refer to the conclusion of the search. The non-reference to the name of the assessee and the suspension/ conclusion of the search is a lapse and failure to comply with the requirements of the search and seizure manual. However, this does not affect the validity of the search or the assessment order u/s 153A. The department should take remedial steps and ensure that such lapses do not occur in future. Also, the department should give a copy of the search warrant to the person searched so as to curtail allegations of interpolation, addition of names etc

IFB Agro Industries Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 21, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 2(22)(e): Inter-corporate deposits (“ICDs”) are not “loans and advances” and are not assessable to tax as “deemed dividend

S. 2(22)(e) refers to ‘loans’ and ‘advances’ and does not refer to a ‘deposit’. The fact that the term ‘deposit’ does not mean a ‘loan’ and that the two terms are two different & distinct terms is evident from the Explanation to S. 269T and S. 269SS of the Act where both the terms are used. Further, the second proviso to S. 269SS recognises the term ‘loan’ taken or ‘deposit’ accepted. Once it is accepted that the terms ‘loan’ and ‘deposit’ are two distinct terms which have distinct meaning then if only the term ‘loan’ is used in a particular section the ‘deposit’ received by an assessee cannot be treated as a ‘loan’ for that section. The Companies Act, 1956 also makes a distinction between a “loan” and a “deposit” in s. 58A, 269 & 370. The distinction between a “loan” and a “deposit” is that in the case of a “loan”, the needy person approaches the lender for obtaining the loan. The loan is lent at the terms stated by the lender. In the case of a “deposit”, the depositor goes to the depositee for investing his money primarily with the intention of earning interest. Also, s. 2(22)(e) enacts a deeming fiction and cannot be given a wider meaning than what it purports to cover. It has to be interpreted strictly. Thus, the view of the AO & CIT(A) that an Inter-corporate deposit is similar to a loan is not correct (Gujarat Gas & Financial Services 115 ITD 218 (Ahd)(SB), Housing & Urban Development Corp 102 TTJ (Del)(SB) 936 & Bombay Oil Industries 28 SOT 383 (Bom) followed)

DCIT vs. Motorola Solutions India Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 20, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


Severe strictures passed on the AO for acts of “malfeasance by pleading apparent ignorance and acting in subterfuge and an underhand manner“. CBDT requested to train officers properly to avoid them taking the law into their own hands with complete impunity and disregard for the law

It alarms us that unfortunately with complete impunity and disregard of the factual position, the AO repeatedly makes apparently naive misplaced, mis-guiding and factually incorrect assertions that the Tribunal was in the process of final hearing of the appeal”. These assertions indicate either a gross ignorance or ineptitude of the Department or a deliberately calculated belief that even misstatement of facts before the Tribunal could be accepted as gospel truth on a mere assertions of the government officers. Both or either of these situations are equally dangerous and fraught of dangers as vast powers have been given by the Act to the AO in order to exercise its powers and discharge the functions under the Income Tax Act

Li And Fung India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 20, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


Transfer Pricing: TNMM under Rule 10B(1)(e) contemplates ALP determination with reference to the relevant factors (cost, assets, sales etc.) of the assessee and not those of the AE or third party. Assessee’s study report cannot be discarded without showing how it is wrong. Finding that assessee is a risk bearing entity should be based on tangible material

The assessee’s compensation model is based on functions performed by it and the operating costs incurred by it and not on the cost of goods sourced from third party vendors in India. Allotting a margin of the value of goods sourced by third party customers from Indian exporters/vendors to compute the assessee’s profit is unjustified. To apply the TNMM, the assessee’s net profit margin realized from international transactions had to be calculated only with reference to cost incurred by it, and not by any other entity, either third party vendors or the AE. Rule 10B(1)(e) does not enable consideration or imputation of cost incurred by third parties or unrelated enterprises to compute the assessee’s net profit margin for application of the TNMM. Rule 10B(1)(e) contemplates a determination of ALP with reference to the relevant factors (cost, assets, sales etc.) of the enterprise in question, i.e. the assessee, as opposed to the AE or any third party. The approach of the TPO in essence imputes notional adjustment/income in the assessee’s hands on the basis of a fixed percentage of the FOB value of export made by unrelated party venders

V. K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 19, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 153A/ 153C: Important principles of law relating to search assessments explained

Pursuant to a search u/s 132 conducted on the premises of another person, the AO issued a notice u/s 153C upon the assessee and thereafter passed an assessment order. The assessee claimed that the said assessment was not valid on the ground that (a) no books of account of the assessee were found in the premises of the other person, (b) though the AO of the searched person & the assessee was the same it was not shown that the satisfaction was recorded in the course of the assessment of the searched party and not of the assessee, (c) as no assessment was pending on the date of search, the assessment could be made only for the incriminating material found in the search & (d) as the satisfaction was recorded on 23.7.2010 and the relevant AY was 2011-12, the AO could issue a notice u/s 153C only for six preceding AYs relevant to this AY (i.e. AY 2005-06 to 2010-11) and the notice issued for AY 2004-05 was barred by limitation. HELD by the Tribunal

CIT vs. Mastek Limited (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 18, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 260A(4): High Court has power to hear the appeal on questions not formulated at the stage of admission

The Revenue is under some misconception. The proviso following the main provision of Section 260A(4) of the Act states that nothing stated in sub-section (4), i.e., ‘The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated’ shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. The High Court’s power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor

Sunder Deep Educational Society vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 18, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 11: Law on taxability of voluntary donations as “anonymous donations” u/s 115BBC or as “cash credit” u/s 68 in hands of charitable trust explained

The assessee, a charitable institution, received donations of Rs. 3.55 crore. It maintained a record indicating the name and address of the donor. It claimed that the said donations had been applied for charitable purposes as per s. 11 and nothing was assessable. The AO conducted a test check by sending letters to the donors. To the extent of donations aggregating Rs. 1.96 crore, the letters came back undelivered or were not replied to. The AO held that as the confirmations were not received, the said donations were “anonymous donations” and assessable to tax u/s 115BBC. He held that alternatively, the said sum was assessable as a “cash credit” u/s 68 as the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the alleged donors was not proved. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the said donations could not be treated as “anonymous” u/s 115BBC though he upheld the AO’s stand that the said sum was assessable as a “cash credit” u/s 68. On further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal

Tirumala Music Centre (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 17, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 32(1)(ii): Any right (including leasehold rights) which enables carrying on business effectively and profitably is an “intangible asset” & eligible for depreciation

S. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation on “business or commercial rights” The expression “business or commercial rights” means rights obtained for effectively carrying on business or commerce. Commerce is a wider term which encompasses business in its fold. Therefore, any right which is obtained for carrying on business effectively and profitably has to fall within the meaning of the term “intangible asset” (Kotak Forex Brokerage Ltd 33 SOT 237(Mum) & Smifs Securities Ltd 348 ITR 302 (SC) followed)

ITO vs. Shailesh D. Shah/ Yusuf R Tanwar vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 16, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 41(1): Liability outstanding for long period of time is assessable as income (despite no write-back in A/cs) if assessee unable to prove genuineness of liability

It is very improbable that payments to labour can remain outstanding for more than three years. The assessee has not been able to produce the records relating to the name, addresses and bills of the labour etc to prove that the liability continues to exist. It is accordingly a case of cessation of liability. The assessee has just continued the entry of the same in his books of account without any intention to pay back the same. The view that such sums shown as liability is assessable to tax is sanctioned by Chipsoft Technology 210 Taxman 173 (Del) (attached) where the view was taken that it would be illogical to say that a debtor or an employer, holding on to unpaid dues, should be given the benefit of his showing the amount as a liability, even though he would be entitled in law to say that a claim for its recovery is time barred, and continue to enjoy the amount. This view is not contrary to the view taken in Vardhaman Overseas Ltd 343 ITR 408 (Del) where the law was laid down that s. 41(1) does not apply if the amount of liability is not written back in the accounts. If both judgements are read in harmony, it can be observed that the assessee cannot be allowed to show an amount as a liability even though he has no intention to pay it back but to enjoy the same for an unlimited period without being added to his income only on the excuse that he has not written off the same in his books of accounts. However, if the facts of the case establish that the liability has been genuinely shown by the assessee and his subsequent conduct shows that he has paid back the said credits and his intention was not to enjoy the amount for unlimited period without any intention to pay back the same, then it cannot be said to be a case of cessation of liability. On facts, not only is the existence of outstanding liability of labour charges for so many years improbable in the normal course of business but the assessee has also failed to give any evidence regarding the identity & genuineness of the creditors. Accordingly it is a case of cessation of liability and s. 41(1) applies (Yusuf R. Tanwar vs. ITO followed (attached))

Top