Samsung India Software Operations Pvt Ltd Vs Addnl CIT [ITA No.399/Bang/2012] (Bang ITAT) Facts of the case The Assessee company, entirely held by M/s. Samsung Electronics Company Ltd (SECL), had claimed deduction under section 10A in its return of income filed for AY 2007-08. SECL being the sole owner of its branch office entered into a business transfer agreement with the assessee company on 5.9.05 for transfer of business of the branch office by way of slump sale as a going concern together with all its rights, properties and assets of the business. AO held that undertaking was not formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose and that the provisions of Explanation 1 & 2 to sub-section (2) of section 80 I of the Act shall also apply for this purpose. The AO pointed out that the undertaking of the assessee was formed by transfer of same plant & machinery which were earlier used by branch office.
Monthly Archives: June 2012
Pentamedia Graphics Ltd.v DCIT [ITA Nos 1780 (MDS.) OF 2009, 1733, 1768 and 1887 (MDS) OF 2010] (Chennai ITAT) Facts of the case Assessee is engaged in the business of multimedia computer graphics and animation. Assessee’s software and training division was hived off to its sister concern M/s. Pentafour Communications Ltd. The consideration for the transaction was Rs. 894.21 crores. No amount was attributed towards goodwill. But amounts were attributed towards non compete fee, sale of brand name, sale of IPR, etc. In its computation of income, the assessee has not offered any capital gains towards transfer of goodwill. The accounts of the sister concern M/s. Pentafour Technologies Ltd. reflected Rs. 626,08,80,282 under the head ‘fixed assets’ towards goodwill on acquisition of the software division.
Non-compete fees to a sister concern is a colorable device for ‘Goodwill’ to evade tax ...
DCIT v TVS Electronics Ltd IT Appeal NO. 811 (MDS.) of 2010 (Chennai ITAT) Facts of the case The assessee made payment to M/s Rosewell Group Services Ltd. based in Mauritius for market survey, qualitative consumer measurement, retail store site information, etc. without deducting tax at source under section 195 of the Act The AO concluded that the payment made was nothing but fees for technical services relying on Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.
In the absence of FTS clause in India-Mauritius DTAA, FTS under the Act to be ...
Notification No. 21/2012 [F.No.142/10/2012-SO (TPL)] S.O. 1323(e), dated 13-6-2012 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1F) of section 197A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies that no deduction of tax shall be made on the following specified payment under section 194J of the Act, namely:-
Notification: No TDS u/s 194J on “off-the-shelf” software
Nokia India (P.) Ltd. v Addln CIT [2012] 22 taxmann.com 109 (Delhi – Trib.) Facts of the case Assessee incurred certain advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure. The AO in order to determine the arm’s length price of international transaction with associated enterprise referred the matter to TPO u/s 93CA(3) of the act. The TPO passed an order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, wherein he determined the arm’s length price on Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses amounting to Rs. 253,48,30,000.
TP adjustments by a TPO for such international transactions which are not reported by AO ...
The Finance Bill, 2012 was introduced in Parliament on 16 March 2012. Certain official amendments have been carried out during the passage of the Bill in Parliament. A supplementary memorandum elucidating the official amendments to the Finance Bill, 2012 as reflected in the Finance Act, 2012 enacted on 28 May 2012, is attached. Click here to download
Amendments to Finance Bill, 2012 – Supplementary Memorandum
Shri Vishnu Anant Mahajan v ACIT ITA No.3002/Ahd/2009 (Ahmedabad Special Bench) Background and facts of the case The assessee is an individual and derives income by way of share of profit from the firm of M/s.Mahajan & Amar Doshi, capital gains, interest, dividend and house property. The assessee derives 76% of professional income as share from the firm and the balance amount by way of remuneration and interest income from the firm. The AO allocated the expenses to the income not includible under Section 10(2A). Thus, the business income by way of remuneration and interest from the firm has been taxed in the hands of the assessee under section 28(v) after allowing 24% of the expenditure. Thus, 76% of the expenditure has been disallowed.
14A Disallowance on Partner’s share of profit & Depreciation not an expenditure for 14A – ...
Alstom Transport SA v DIT A.A.R. No. 958 of 2010 dated 7th June 2012 Facts of the case The applicant along with three other companies, entered into a Consortium Agreement for the purpose executing a contract: “to implement the design, manufacture, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of signaling/ train-control and communication system”. The consortium was jointly and severally responsible for the work tendered. The Applicant contended that:
Dissecting a composite contract for offshore supply no longer good in law – AAR
DDIT v Toyo Engineering Corpn [2012] 22 taxmann.com 18 (MUM. – ITAT) The assessee was an engineering company incorporated in and tax resident of Japan. During the year it was, inter alia engaged in executing certain Project Management Contracts with MRPL, HPL and CFCL. On the perusal of these services, it can be seen that the assessee received consideration towards project management contracts on an overall basis towards (i) Project Management Services ; (ii) Local engineering supervision ; (iii) Construction management and supervision services and ; (iv) Start-up assistance services.