Month: March 2010

In pursuance of the consultations of the collegium of the I.T.A.T consisting of the President and two senior-most Vice Presidents, the following Members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have been transferred, in public interest, in the same capacity, to the Bench(es) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as shown against their names, with effect from the forenoon of 05.04.2010

The Bombay High Court has directed that appeals involving the following issues should be grouped and placed for hearing at an early date.

In an oral judgement delivered today (19th March 2010) in CIT vs. Asian Star Co Ltd ITA No. 200 OF 2009 and other cases, the Bombay High Court has dissented from the judgement of the Delhi High Court and held that the language of Expl. (baa) to s. 80HHC did not permit such netting off. It held that the Special Bench had traversed the limits of interpretation and virtually legislated in giving the deduction. It held that merely because s. 80HHC was an incentive provision was no ground for giving more deduction that what the statute permitted. It held that for purposes of Expl. (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of gross interest has to be reduced from business profits.

The question whether contract manufacturing agreements are subject to s. 194C has been decided by the Bombay High Court in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd ITA No. 2256 of 2009 and other matters in favour of the assessees. In an oral judgement pronounced today 12th March 2010, the Court held that while “works contracts”were subject to TDS under section 194C, “sales contracts”were not. It upheld the arguments of the pharmaceutical companies that the contract manufacturing agreements entered into by them with other manufacturers amounted to a “sales contract”which was not liable to TDS u/s 194C. The text of the judgement shall be made available shortly.