Search Results For: Special Bench


COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Goodwill is an intangible asset. It falls under the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The question whether when a firm has been succeeded by a company and net assets of the firm have vested in the company, there is any transfer of goodwill in the real sense and whether the valuation of goodwill done by the assessee is erroneous has to be decided by the Division Bench

It is vivid from the discussion made supra that qua the issue of depreciation on goodwill, the authorities below have divided it into two broader compartments by holding that i) no depreciation can be legally allowed on the amount of genuine goodwill in terms of section 32 of the Act; and ii) when a firm is succeeded by a company and all its net assets vest in the company, there is no transfer of goodwill in real sense and further the valuation of goodwill done by the assessee in the instant case is fallacious

COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 13, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 18, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 269SS/ 271D Penalty: It is not enough for the assessee to show that the transaction of taking loan/ deposit by cash is genuine or bona fide. It has also to be shown that there was reasonable cause u/s 273B for the assessee being unable to take the loan/deposit by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft

There is no dispute between the parties that bonafide nature of transactions alone would not be sufficient to escape the clutches of sec. 271D of the Act. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi (supra), it is required to be established that there was some bonafide reasons for the assessee for not taking or accepting loan or deposit by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, so that the provisions of sec.273B of the Act will come to the help of the assessee. Only in such cases, the AO is precluded from levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act

COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 14, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(1A) Agricultural income: Mushroom is not a ‘vegetable’, ‘plant’, 'fruit' or ‘animal’ but is a ‘fungus’. Anything which is produced by performing basic operations on the soil is an "agricultural product" and the income therefrom is "agricultural income". The nature of the product and the fact that it is not a ‘plant’, ‘flower’, ‘vegetable’ or ‘fruit’ is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is whether the production is by performing some basic operations on the soil (All judgements considered)

It is clear that we cannot restrict the word “product” to ‘plants’, ‘fruits’, ‘vegetables’ or such botanical life only. The only condition is that the “product” in question should be raised on the land by performing some basic operations. Mushroom produced by the assessee is a product. This product is raised on land/soil, by performing certain basic operation. The product draws nourishment from the soil and is naturally grown, by such operation on soil which require expenditure of “human skill and labour”. The product so raised has utility for consumption, trade and commerce and hence would qualify as an “agricultural product” the sale of which gives rise to agricultural income.

COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 5, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law explained on (a) whether a subsidiary of a foreign company constitutes "business connection" and/ or "fixed Permanent Establishment" and/or "Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment" of assessee in India, (b) whether any attributes of profits on account of signing, network planning and negotiation of off-shore supply contracts in India could be attributed to such business connection/ permanent establishment and (c) whether notional interest on delayed consideration of supply of equipment and licensing of software taxable in the hands of assessee as interest from vendor financing

HELD by majority in favour of the assessee:

According to the Supreme Court in Formula One World Championship Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 394 ITR 80 (SC), the ‘disposal test’ is paramount which needs to be seen while analyzing fixed place PE under Article 5(1). Though in our humble understanding, the test of permanency qua fixed place has been slightly diluted by the Hon’ble Court but not the “disposal test”. Again this judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reiterated and referred extensively in a subsequent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ADIT vs. E-Fund IT Solution (2017) 86 taxmann.com 240, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had quoted extensively the same views and commentaries and also the judgment of Formula One World Championship Ltd. and held that there must exist a fixed place in India which is at disposal of foreign enterprise through which they carry on their own business. In that case, the Indian subsidiary company of the foreign enterprise was rendering support services which enabled the foreign enterprise in turn to render services to its client and the outsourcing of work to the Indian subsidiary was held to be not giving rise to fixed place of PE. This judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court nearly clinches the issue before hand in so far as role of Indian subsidiary while deciding the fix place PE.

HELD by minority in favour of the revenue:

The assessee company had a PE in India by way of the premises and existence of its Indian subsidiary Nokia India Pvt Ltd, and that the profit attributable to the specified operations of this PE are 3.75% of total sales of the equipment in India. The plea of the assessee against the existence of business connection and the existence of permanent establishment is to be rejected, and plea of the assessee on the attribution of profit is to be partly accepted in the terms