The s. 197 proceedings did not create any embargo because the order had worked itself out and in any event the s. 197 order was a tentative measure for TDS and did not in anyway fetter the jurisdiction of the AAR.
In order to consider the meaning of the term “make available” in Article 12 of the India-Canada DTAA, one can have regard to the India-USA DTAA. The term requires that the service provider should also make his technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how etc., known to the recipient of the service so as to equip him to independently perform the technical function himself in future, without the help of the service provider. In other words, payment of consideration would be regarded as ‘fee for technical / included services’ only if the twin test of rendering services and making technical knowledge available at the same time is satisfied.
However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deuction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.
Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified, HELD, upholding the order of the Tribunal:
Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that s. 292BB was procedural and prospective.
Where the assessee, a Korean company, had entered into two contracts, one for on-shore execution of a fiber optic system and the other for offshore supply and services and it had a project office in India and the question arose whether any part of the profits from offshore supply was taxable in India, HELD:
Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business, any loss arising as a result of infraction of the law is not allowable.
Where the assessee, a resident of Singapore, received consideration from Indian customers for grading and certification reports of diamonds and the AO took the view in s. 197 proceedings that the income was taxable as “royalty” on the ground that there was transfer of commercial experience in the shape of the diamond grading report
Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories vs. CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that in the absence of export profits deduction u/s 80-HHC was not available, HELD, reversing the judgement of the High Court that in accordance with the CBDT Circular issued under the then prevailing s. 80-HHC, deduction was allowable on the proportionate basis notwithstanding the absence of profits from the export activity and the judgement in IPCA Laboratories had no application.
For purposes of Article 20 of the India-Korea DTAA, a Government undertaking with corporate status cannot be equated to the Government. Even if the Articles of Incorporation make it clear that the Government has pervasive control over the undertaking, it still cannot be treated to be a wing or an integral part of the Government. However, the fundamental requirement of Article 20(1)(a) is that the remuneration should be paid by the Contracting State. Even if it is paid out of funds allocated by the Government to the undertaking specifically towards personnel expenses, the requirement of Article 20(1) is satisfied. It is as good as payment by the State itself. The expression “payment by a Contracting State” cannot be given a rigid or literal interpretation so as to cover the payments made directly by Government or a department of the Government. Even if the payment is made out of State’s funds set apart for that purpose, the requirement of Section 20(1)(a) will be attracted and the Indian income-tax cannot be levied in such a case.