Messages

Friends,

I am a little confused on the correct position of the law in the light of Galileo, SET Sattellite, Morgan Stanley & Rolls Royce. So many judgements on the issue of PE and attribution of profits and yet there seems to be no common theme between them. Has anyone made a study of these judgements and would you care to set out what is the prevalent position. I think it will be useful to all of us.

Thanks in advance,

CA Ramesh.

Friends,

section 147 is one section that causes a lot of agony to all because it involves reopening the past completed matters. So I thought we must list out the all-important judgements on issue:

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. -vs- ITO, [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC)
Commissioner of Income-Tax -vs- Kelvinator of India Ltd., [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)
Commissioner of Income-Tax -vs- Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., [1992] 198 ITR 297(SC)
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19/[2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC)

Anybody wanting basic understanding of law of 147 must do well to read above judgements so that the basic concepts are clear. Hope I have not missed any other important judgements on the point.

CA Ramesh.

I very much like this process by which latest case law on imp issues are available. It makes life so much easy. I am wondering if someone can prepare a document giving all the case law topic-wise. e.g. Bad debts - latest case is such and such....S. 115J - latest case is such and such .... deductibility of software expenditure - latest case is such and such etc etc.  This can be updated periodocally e.g monthly or bi-monthly. I am sure that it can be done by someone like you with an excellent grasp of case law. It will be very useful to entire body of professionals CAs and lawyers.

Regards,

Ramesh.

Friends, I need some help please.

In Roginin Garments, Honourable Special Bench in Chennai has held that relief under section 80-IA should be deducted from profits before computing relief under section 80-HHC.

However, in Gorej Agrovet, Honourable Mumbai High Court has said this:

"14. Mr.Pardiwala further submitted that
reopening of the assessment based on the
construction of Section 80IB (13) read with Section
80IA(9) is also without any merit because, in the
present case, it is admitted by the respondents in
their affidavit in reply (at page 92 of the
petition) that the assessee had not exported goods
manufactured in the industrial units eligible for
deduction under Section 80IB. Once it is admitted
that the goods manufactured in the industrial units
eligible for deduction under Section 80IB have not
been exported, then Section 80IB(13) read with
Section 80IA(9) would have no application in the
computation of deduction under Section 80HHC. In
other words, where the goods exported were not
manufactured in the industrial unit on which 80IB
has been claimed, the question of excluding the 80IB
deduction while computing 80HHC deduction does not
arise at all. Accordingly, Mr.Pardiwala submitted
that in absence of any reason for reopening the
assessment, the notice issued under Section 148 of
the Act is liable to be quashed and set aside."

"20. The next contention of the revenue is
that in the regular assessment, the Assessing
Officer has not discussed the provisions of Section
80IB(13) read with Section 80IA(9) of the Act and if
those provisions were taken into consideration,
there would be negative profit and consequently
deduction under section 80HHC could not be granted.
This argument is also without any merit because, in
the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
revenue it is admitted that the assessee had not
made exports of the goods manufactured in the
industrial units eligible for deduction under
Section 80IB. If the goods manufactured in the
units availing deduction under Section 80IB were not
exported, then obviously the goods manufactured in
those units would not be taken into account for
computation of deduction under section 80HHC. In
that event, the question of applying the principles
laid down in Section 80IA(9) while computing the
deduction under section 80HHC does not arise at all."

Friends, does this mean that Rogni Garment cannot apply in Mumbai or can be the two are read together in some way. I am puzzled.

I am having matter before Honourable Mumabi Tribunal and I do not know what to argue or how to argue this point.

Please help,

Ramesh.

Sir,

I am looking for news about seminars/discussions on income tax matter but could not find on this site. Can you please mail me at ca_ramesh@yahoo.com as i am eager to attend.

CA_Ramesh