Yearly Archives: 2013


Cairn UK Holdings Ltd v DIT [2013] 38 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi) IT/ILT : Proviso to section 112(1) doesn’t deny benefit of lower tax rate of 10% on long-term capital gains from sale of listed securities to a non-resident investor availing benefit of exchange rate neutralization under first proviso to section 48. The said benefit of lower tax rate of 10% can’t be denied on the ground that indexation benefit under 2nd proviso is not applicable. It is incorrect to say that 10% rate under proviso to section 112(1) applies only where indexation benefit under 2nd proviso to section 48 applies and still assessee opts to not avail it 

Benefit of first proviso to sec. 48 r.w. sec. 112 concessional rate is available to ...


ADIT v WNS North America Inc [ITA No 2944/Mum/2012 (Mum ITAT) dated 31.07.2013] Background: The assessee is a foreign company and tax resident of United State of America. The assessee is inter alia engaged in the business of rendering marketing and management services to WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. which is its associated enterprise in India. The assessee has entered into marketing and management services agreementwith WNS India. During the year under consideration the assessee has received an amount of Rs.68,15,11,339 towards marketing and management services rendered by it to WNS India. Since the assessee’s employees visited India for providing managerial services, therefore WNS India constitutes service PE under Article 5(2)(1) of Indo-USA DTAA. Accordingly an amount of Rs.6,52,13,074/- has been attributable to such service PE for managerial service rendered in India and which has been declared by the assessee in its return of income for the year under consideration. 

Management & marketing services do not make available technical services & therefore, not taxable – ...


M/s GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD v Addln CIT ITA No.3198/Mum/2011; ITA No.5213/Mum/2010 dtd 26.06.2013 – Mum ITAT Background:  Assessee has given interest-free advances to various sister concerns or other concerns totalling to Rs.2,68,61,882. Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings these advances are for business expediency or given out of its own funds.  The AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee and observed that no explanation has been given in respect of Luster Print Media Limited and Dalmia Fresenius Limited. The AO considered these interest free loans as given for the purpose other than business. In respect of other parties also the A.O. noticed that the assessee has not given satisfactory reply in respect of interest free advances / loans. Therefore, he disallowed at the rate of 20% on the interest-free loans.

Where interest-free advances are made out of owned funds, no disallowance of interest can be ...



ITO(TDS) v Jet Airways (India) Ltd. [IT APPEAL NOS. 7439, 7440 & 7441 (MUM) OF 2010] dtd 26.06.13 Mumbai ITAT Background: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of aviation. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out. After survey, proceedings were initialed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act in connection with the applicability of TDS on amounts retained by the banks in respect of air tickets booked through credit cards. Assessee during the course of proceedings stated that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the above mentioned amounts retained by the banks as the amounts retained by the banks is in the nature of discounting in consideration of immediate payment made by the banks to the assessee. 

No TDS u/s 194H on credit card charges paid to banks – Mum ITAT


Oasis Securities Ltd. v DCIT IT APPEAL NO. 8009 (MUM.) OF 2011 dtd 20.02.13 (Mumbai ITAT) Background: The assessee company is engaged in the activity of stock broking and providing financial services. The assessee earned tax-free dividend income of Rs. 1,73,580 and the same has been claimed as exempt. The AO has stated that assessee has not allocated any expense incurred for earning of such tax-free income. Assessee stated that no expenditure has been incurred to earn the exempted income. However, AO did not agree with above contention of assessee and by applying r. 8D disallowed the same as per sec. 14A of the Act. 

14A not applicable where dividend is received from shares held as stock-in-trade – Mum ITAT


McKinsey & Company (Thailand) Co. Ltd. v DDIT IT APPEAL NO. 7624 (MUM.) OF 2010 (Mumbai ITAT) Background: The assessee is part of McKinsey group of entities, the primary business of which is to render strategic consultancy services to their clients. The receipts amounting to Rs. 79,99,272 in the instant year for such services rendered by the assessee to its Indian counterpart were claimed as having been performed outside India and since these were rendered in the ordinary course of business, the same qualified to be a ‘business receipt‘. In the absence of the assessee having any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, it was argued that no incidence of tax arose in India on this account. The AO treated this amount as ‘Fees for technical services’ and hence chargeable to tax under Article 12 of the DTAA. 

In the absence of FTS clause in India-Thailand DTAA, consultancy services cannot be treated as ...



Hathway Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee, an investment company, bought electric meters from the Gujarat State Electricity Board (GSEB) which were leased back to GSEB simultaneously. The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on the purchase cost of the meters. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the claim on the ground that the circumstances like no physical possession of the meters given etc showed that the transaction of ‘sale and lease-back’ was a “sham” and that it was one merely of giving finance and that the assets were held as a security for the finance given. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD: A distinction between an ‘operating lease’ and a ‘finance lease’ has been made by the Special Bench inIndusInd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum) (SB) on the basis of which it can be said that a ‘finance lease’ is a ‘sale’ which is given the colour of a ‘lease’ by the parties for their mutual benefit and to avoid tax. In such transactions, it has to be seen whether the sale transaction is a real transaction or a sham transaction with the object of enabling the alleged purchaser to claim himself as the owner of the goods, which are further claimed to be leased back to the original owner of the goods. In a sham transaction of sale and lease back the ownership of the goods is not transferred to the alleged lessor, but is shown to be done, so as to enable the purchaser to claim ownership for the goods for the purpose of tax relief. On facts, the ‘sale and lease back’ transaction is a sham transaction done with the object to facilitate the benefits of depreciation to a person who otherwise is not eligible to claim the same. The intention of the parties was not that of sale or lease but was a loan transaction. The rates of interest/ rental have been fixed taking into consideration that the equipments are eligible for 100% depreciation and it is provided that if the claim of depreciation is changed, the rental in the shape of interest will accordingly change. Such clauses cannot be a part of any lease agreement but finance agreement only because in a normal lease agreement, the lessee is not concerned as to what benefits are available to the owner/ lessor under the Income-tax Act. The contention that as the transaction is with a State Government undertaking, it would be highly improper to impute any collusiveness or colourable nature of the transaction is misconceived. The argument that there is no bar for the assessee for making tax planning so as to reduce its taxes, provided it is within the framework of the law, is also not acceptable as u/s 23 of the Indian Contract Act, even if the consideration or object of an agreement may not be expressly forbidden by law, but if it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of law, the same will not […]

Sale & Leaseback transactions are collusive & tax evasive tools – Mum ITAT


SARGENT & LUNDY v ADIT [ITA No.8986/Mum/2010 (Mum ITAT)] dtd 24.07.2013 Background: The assessee is tax resident of USA. It is a consulting firm engaged in providing services to the power industry by providing engineering based services. The assessee received a sum of Rs.2,22,16,154/- from L&T Limited for rendering consulting and engineering services in relation to Ultra Mega Power projects. The assessee entered into agreement to provide ‘consulting and engineering services’ required by L&T “in the preparation of technical designs” for Ultra Mega Power Projects. L&T was to bid for setting up power projects. It engaged the services of the assessee for technical evaluation and preparation of necessary designs and documents. The assessee did not offer this income in the return on the pretext that such sum was not taxable as the services do not make available technical knowledge, experience, skill or know how within the meaning of FIS as per Article 12(4) of the DTAA between India & USA.  However, the AO held that the services rendered were in the nature of ‘consulting and engineering services in preparation of the technical designs basis in the form of review of designs for Ultra Mega Power Projects and therefore was covered u/s 9(i)(vii) of the Act as well as includible in the scope of ‘Fees for included services’ under Article 12 of the DTAA.

FTS: Services for future use can be regarded as ‘made available’ under Article 12 of ...


Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd v DCIT ITA Nos.6947&6948/Mum/2011 dated 08-05-2013 (Mum ITAT) Background: Assessee had SEZ units which were engaged in the business of trading in jewellery and diamonds. Assessee claimed the profits therefrom as exempt u/s 10AA in the return of income. The AO disallowed the deduction under section 10AA by observing that the exemption claimed u/s. 10AA is applicable only for manufacturing unit as per the Act, whereas the assessee was involved in trading activities. AO observed that for the purpose of Section 10AA of the Act, manufacture is defined under clause (iii) in Explanation 1 that “(iii) ‘Manufacture’ shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act 2005”. However, there is no such definition for services.

Mumbai ITAT confirms trading activities (import for the purpose of re-export) to be eligible u/s ...