S. 32: Depreciation -Plant and machinery put to use in April 1992 — Depreciation is not allowable for the assessment Year.
CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)S. 32: Depreciation -Plant and machinery put to use in April 1992 — Depreciation is not allowable for the assessment Year.
CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)S. 17 : Perquisite – Salary-Employees deputed abroad — Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.15,17(2), 192 ]
Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)S. 17 : Perquisite – Salary-Employees deputed abroad — Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.15,17(2), 192 ]
Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Tribunal remanding the issue of interest expenses and deleting other expenses-– Order of Tribunal is up held – No question of law [S. 254(1) , 260A, R.8D ]
CIT v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 500 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 12 ( St)S. 10A : Free trade zone – Depreciation and other deductions –
-Neither any deduction claimed by assessee for Assessment Years prior to amendment nor exemption granted — Ten years’ relief allowed by later amendment in 2003 —Interpretation- Legislative intent – The intent of the Legislature while it made those amendments was not to curtail the relief to an assessee, who had not availed of double benefit- Matter remanded to Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. [ S.10A(6) ]
S. 10(14) : Special allowance or benefit -Allowance received by employee to cover expenses incurred wholly in performance of duties —Extra payment to meet costs in Foreign location is not entitled to exemption. [ S.15, 17 , 192 ]
Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent Establishment -Global payment solutions facilitating use of electronic forms of Payment, ie by credit card, instead of cash and cheques -Banks and financial Institutions – There was a fixed place permanent establishment, service permanent establishment and dependent agent permanent establishment-On such attribution of income to the permanent establishment, the tax was required to be withheld at full applicable rate at which the non-resident is subjected to tax in India. Even automatic equipment like server can also create a permanent establishment and there was no requirement of human intervention- DTAA-India -Singapore [ Art. 5, 7, 12 ]
Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Singapore, In Re (2018) 406 ITR 43/ 303 CTR 305/ 167 DTR 321 (AAR)S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Income or capital- Non-compete Amounts received by assessee under Non-Compete agreement constitute capital receipt- Revenue cannot ignore the specific terms of the agreements and render findings contrary thereto as regards the nature of the income received by the assessee- Form and substance of transaction-Substance of transaction to be considered. [ S.28(i) ]
V. C. Nannapaneni. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 505 / 305 CTR 625 /171 DTR 337(T&AP) (HC)S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Income or capital — Incentive for sale of Sugar is a capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax .
CIT v. Kanoria Sugar And General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 737 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Kanoria Sugar And General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 1 ( St)S. 35:Punishment of advocates for misconduct- Status of Legislator is member of House. Legislator cannot be styled as full time salaried employees – Merely drawing salary or allowances does not result in creation of relationship of employer and employee between government and legislators- Merely because Advocate is elected people’s representative , it does not amount to professional misconduct – In the absence of express provision in Act or Rules , Legislators cannot be debarred from practicing as Advocate [ S.49, Bar Council of India Rules , 1975 R.49, Art. 14, 32 ]
Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI AIR 2018 SC 4633