Home ›

Search Results For: Sushma Chowla (JM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 199/205: In a case where the deductor has deducted tax at source but has not deposited the tax with the Govt, the assessee cannot be made to suffer. U/s 205, the assessee/ deductee cannot be called upon to pay the tax. Credit for the tax deducted at source has to be allowed in the hands of the deductee irrespective of whether the same has been deposited by the deductor to the credit of the Central Government or not (Yashpal Sahani 165 TM 144 (Bom), Sumit Devendra Rajani 49 TM.com 31 (Guj) & Pushkar Jain 103 TM.com 106 (Bom) followed)

In terms of section 205 of the Act, the assessee/deductee cannot be called upon to pay tax, to the extent to which tax had been deducted from the payments due. Consequently, it follows that credit for such tax deducted at source, which is deducted from the account of the deductee, by the deductor, is to be allowed as taxes paid in the hands of the deductee, irrespective of the fact whether the same has been deposited by the deductor to the credit of the Central Government or not. The deductee in such circumstances cannot be denied credit of tax deducted at source on its behalf. Under the Act, the provisions are enshrined under which recovery of tax from the account of the person, who had deducted the such tax, are provided

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty/ 40(a)(i): Law explained on whether payment of web hosting charges to Amazon Web Services LLC (USA) (AWS) constitutes "royalty" under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) read with the India USA DTAA and whether there is any obligation to deduct TDS thereon u/s 195

The aspect which needs to be seen is whether the assessee is paying consideration for getting any right in respect of any property. The assessee claims that it does not pay for such right but it only pays for the services. The claim of assessee before us was that it was only using services provided by Amazon and was not concerned with the rights in technology. The fees paid by assessee was for use of technology and cannot be said to be for use of royalty, which stands proved by the factum of charges being not fixed but variable i.e. it varies with the use of technology driven services and also use of such services does not give rise to any right in property of Amazon and consequently, Explanation under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act is not attracted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Entire law on whether the TPO can sit in judgement over the business model of the assessee and determine the ALP of the transactions with AEs at Nil explained in the context of judgements in Kodak India 288 CTR 46 (Bom), Lever India Exports 292 CTR 393 (Bom), Cushman and Wakefield 233 TAXMAN 250 (Del), R.A.K. Ceramics 293 CTR 361 (AP) & Delloite Consulting 137 ITD 21 (Mum)

Now, coming to the issue of transfer pricing adjustment made by TPO on account of services availed by the assessee from its associated enterprises and taking the value of said international transactions at Nil. In the first instance, we hold that TPO cannot sit in the judgment of business module of assessee and its intention to avail or not to avail any services from its associated enterprises. The role of TPO is to determine the arm’s length price of international transactions undertaken by the assessee and whether the same is at arm’s length price when compared with similar transactions undertaken by external entities or internal comparables

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/ 10B: The bar in s. 92CA(4) that the assessee is not entitled to s. 10A/ 10B deductions in respect of transfer pricing adjustments applies only where the adjustment is made by the AO/ TPO. If the assessee suo motu makes the adjustment and offers higher income, s. 10A/10B deduction cannot be denied. Also, as such notional income is not "export turnover", the condition in s. 10A/10B that foreign exchange must be brought to India does not apply (Deloitte Consulting (ITAT Mum) not followed as it is contrary to iGate Global (Kar HC))

There is no dispute in the minds of authorities below that it is profits of business. Such profit of business is neither export turnover nor the total turnover of assessee but is artificial income which needs to be taxed in the hands of assessee. Consequently, we hold that the said artificial income cannot be part of export turnover or total turnover though it will be part of profits of business. Simile which follows is that in the absence of it being offered as export turnover or total turnover, then there could not be any condition for getting foreign exchange to India. The assessee has computed the additional income by following the transfer pricing provisions and has offered the same to tax as its business profits. Once it has been so offered to tax, it forms part of profits of business and while computing the deduction under section 10A(4) of the Act, the said profits have to be taken into consideration and the deduction so computed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: December 12, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32/ 43(6): The slump price paid to acquire a business has to be bifurcated between tangible and intangible assets for purposes of allowing depreciation. If the allocation is done in a systematic manner by an independent valuer and there is no fallacy, the AO is bound by the allocation. If an asset forms part of the block of assets and depreciation is allowed, it loses its identity and depreciation cannot be denied in a later year

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also was of the view that no part of slump price is to be attributed to the know-how, patents and trademarks, since the same has not been acquired by the assessee. Even if we accept the said stand of learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, ultimately after the slump price has been attributed first to the value of tangible assets, then the balance is to be attributed to intangible assets and once the same is done and whether it is under the umbrella of know-how, trademarks, patents or goodwill, it makes no difference since all these are covered under the umbrella of intangible assets, which are eligible for claim of depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The goodwill is also an intangible asset eligible for said depreciation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43B/ 145A: Taxes collected by the assessee, which remain unpaid, have to be added to the income even if the same are not debited to the P&L A/c and claimed as a deduction

In view of the provisions of the Act i.e. section 145A of the Act, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee in not recognizing the VAT attributable to its sales as part of the sale consideration of the goods while computing its Profit & Loss Account. The mandatory provisions of Central Act i.e. section 145A of the Act supersedes the provisions of any State Act i.e. Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Once the assessee recognized the VAT amount as part of the sale consideration, it tantamount to the said entry being routed through the Profit & Loss Account, especially in the cases where the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Scope of Explanation 5A to S. 271(1)(c) on deemed concealment despite income having been offered in the search return explained

The deeming provisions of Explanation 5A under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are applicable to all the searches initiated under section 132 of the Act on or after first day of June, 2007. Reading the said provisions of the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is noted that the person is deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, which is equivalent to the value of money, bullion, jewellery, valuable articles or things from the possession of the assessee during the course of search conducted on or after first day of June, 2007

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/ 10B: After AY 2001-02 when s. 10A/ 10B became “deduction” provisions instead of “exemption” provisions, the deduction has to be computed before adjusting brought forward unabsorbed losses /depreciation

The deduction under s. 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of s.72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses. A distinction has been made by the Legislature while incorporating the provisions of Chapter VIA Section 80A(1) stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Chapter, the deductions specified in ss.80C to 80U. S.80B(5) defines for the purpose of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 29/37(1): Loss on account of forward contract entered into by the assessee to hedge against the loss arising on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction. Contrary view in Vinod Kumar Diamonds is not good law

The assessee was exposed to the risk arising in fluctuation out of exchange rate and as a prudent business man it would like to hedge its risk. Accordingly, the assessee had booked the forward contracts and utilised the same during the year or in the succeeding years. The pattern of the assessee reflected that it entered into forward contracts during the normal course of business and utilised the same for business allowing them to run upto the date of contract. The assessee was engaged in the export of diamonds and the forwards contract was entered into in respect of foreign exchange to be received as a result of export and the same was done to avoid the risk of loss due to foreign exchange fluctuations. The claim has to allowed after taking note of the claim of forward contracts and the accounting policies, i.e. AS-11 (revised) and applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. 294 ITR 451 (SC)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253(2): There is no judicial impropriety in the CIT filing an appeal before the Tribunal against his own order as CIT(A) deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee

The plea of the assessee that there was judicial impropriety in the case was not established because the present Commissioner of Income Tax Administration as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed the order and decided the issues on the basis of various case laws. However, when acting as Commissioner of Income Tax Administration and in view of the facts that there was no legal precedent by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the said issue, directed the Assessing Officer to file appeal against the impugned order. It is not a case where the present person was setting in judgment of the earlier order passed by him but was acting in the capacity of administrator wherein the issues were put before higher forum to adjudicate the same

Read more ›