CIT v Gita Duggal ITA No. 1237/2011 (Del HC) dtd 21.02.2013 Background: Assessee was the owner of property in New Delhi comprising of the basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. On 08.05.2006 she entered into a collaboration agreement with a developer for redeveloping the property. According to its terms, the assessee being desirous of getting the property redeveloped/reconstructed and not being possessed of sufficient finance and lacking in experience in construction, approached the builder to develop the property for and on behalf of the owner at the cost of the builder. The builder was to demolish the existing structure on the plot of land and develop, construct, and/or put up a building consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with terrace at its own costs and expenses. In addition to the cost of construction incurred by the builder on development of the property, a further payment of Rs. four crores was payable to the assessee as consideration against the rights of the assessee. The builder was to get the third floor.
Recent Updates
Welspun Zucchi Textiles Ltd. v ACIT [ITA No 6539 (MUM.) OF 2009 & 898 (Mum.) of 2010] dtd 11.1.2013 Background: During the year under consideration, the assessee company had exported bathrobes to its associated enterprises in Italy. The said transactions were benchmarked by the assessee using CUP method as the most appropriate method. In order to determine the arms length price of these transactions, a reference was made by the AO to the TPO u/s 92CA(1) of the Act. Before the TPO, the assessee submitted the comparative chart of sales to AEs and non AEs. It was submitted that out of the total bathrobes exported to non AEs, about 95% bathrobes were exported to Wallmart USA at an average unit price of US Dollars 6.42 while the average unit price of export made by the assessee to its AEs in Italy was US Dollars 8.80. It was contended that since the price charged to AEs was more than the price charged to non AEs, the international transactions with AEs involving export of bathrobes should be considered at arms length.
CUP method fails where there are differences in location, market size and product prices sold ...
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd v Addln CIT Writ Petition No. 502 of 2012 (order dtd January 10/11, 2013) – Bombay HC Background: Assessee filed a return of income for AY 2006-07 on 28 November 2006 in which it offered income computed at Rs. 385.25 crores to tax under Section 44. An order of assessment was made on 17 November 2008 under Section 143(3) by which the total income was determined at Rs.386.08 crores after making certain disallowances. A notice was issued on 24 March 2011 to the assessee seeking to reopen the assessment. The assessee by a letter dated 18 November 2011 objected to the notice proposing to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessing Officer by his order dated 22 November 2011 disposed of the objections.
Full disclosure in the return of income does not preempt the AO from reassessment – ...
Siemens Limited v CIT(A) IT APPEAL NO. 4356 (MUM.) OF 2010 Dtd 12.02.2013 – Mumbai ITAT Background: Assessee hired “Pehla Testing Laboratory” (PTL) of Germany for carrying out “type tests” of the circuit breakers manufactured by assessee in order to establish that the design and the product meets the requirement of the International Standards. Pehala Lab is accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing & Calibration Laboratories (NABL) Germany, which carries out various kinds of tests for circuit breakers and other electronic devices to prove that the designs of the equipment meets the requirements of the international standards. This is a standard service provided by the Laboratory, which is done automatically by machines. It was submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings that the payment was purely for standard facility provided by the Laboratory which is done automatically by the machines without any human intervention. Further, the payment is in the nature of business income of PTL and since it does not have any Permanent Establishment in India, the same is not taxable in India as per the DTAA. However, the AO rejected the assessee’s contentions on the ground that the type of the services provided by the Pehla Lab is of highly technical in nature covered by section 9(1)(vii).
Services provided by machines without human intervention cannot be construed as FTS – Mum ITAT
P.T. McKinsey Indonesia v DDIT IT APPEAL NO. 7625 (MUM.) OF 2010 (dtd 16.1.2013) (Mum ITAT) Background: Assessee, a foreign company, engaged in the business of providing Strategic Consultancy Services filed its return of income on 27-10-2007 declaring NIL income. During the assessment proceedings, AO found that assessee had claimed to have received a sum of Rs. 23.41 Lakhs under the head ‘Business Receipts’. AO held that the payments received by the assessee were in the nature of consideration received for rendering of technical and consultancy services so as to make available technical knowledge, skill, know how, experience or process and thus was in the nature of fees for included services as covered by Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Indonesia’.
Provision of data is not Royalty & the same cannot be taxed as ‘Other Income’ ...
India Capital Markets (P) Ltd v DCIT IT Appeal No. 2948 (Mum.) of 2010 dtd December 12, 2012 (Mum ITAT) Background: Assessee is a share broker and the main source of income is generated through brokerage. During the year, the assessee has purchased entire clientele business of M/s. Ashmavir Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (AFC) by assigning all clients to the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 2.50 crores . Assessee booked these expenses as purchase of goodwill and has claimed 25% of depreciation amounting to Rs. 62,50,000 thereon. After considering the provisions of section 32, AO was of the opinion that in the said provision, it is apparently clear that goodwill as such does not find any reference and accordingly, disallowed the claim of depreciation on account of goodwill at Rs. 62,50,000.
Purchase of clientele data is intangible/ goodwill eligible for depreciation – Mum ITAT
Natco Pharma Ltd v DCIT [ITA No 377 (Hyd) of 2009 & 487 of 2010] (Hyderabad ITAT) Background: Assessee has written off a sum of Rs. 5,70,09,063 towards creditor advances pertaining to 461 parties. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee could furnish the desired details sought for by him only in respect of two parties. In respect of the remaining 459 parties, the assessee merely furnished the names of those parties. It could not furnish the address of those parties. The assessee has submitted that advances were made to those parties either for supply of material or for rendering services. The assessee has claimed that those parties have failed to supply goods/render services and the advance amount could not be recovered from them. The AO held that the said amounts are not bad debts and hence provisions of section 36(2) are not applicable to the same. Further, the assessee has not filed account copies of those parties and therefore, the claim of the assessee for deduction of the amount of Rs. 5,21,62,330 cannot be allowed.
Bad debts: Mere write-off in the books is not sufficient – Hyderabad ITAT
LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v ACIT (Delhi ITAT) (SB) Background: L.G. Electronics Inc, a Korean company, set up a wholly owned subsidiary in India (the assessee) to which it provided technical assistance. The assessee agreed to pay royalty at the rate of 1% as consideration for the use of technical know how etc. The Korean company also permitted the assessee to use its brand name and trade marks to products manufactured in India on a royalty-free basis. The AO, TPO & DRP held that as the Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (“AMP expenses”) expenses incurred by the assessee were 3.85% of its sales and such percentage was higher than the expenses incurred by comparable companies (Videocon & Whirlpool), the assessee was promoting the LG brand owned by its foreign AE and hence should have been adequately compensated by the foreign AE.
TP: Landmark judgement for benchmarking advertising exp – Del ITAT (SB)
Shri Irfan Abdul Kader Fazlani vs ACIT I.T.A. NO.8831/M/2011 (Mum ITAT) Background: Assessee is a shareholder in M/s. Kamala Mansion Pvt. Ltd (KMPL). Along with other shareholders of this company, the assessee sold his shares for a consideration of Rs. 37.51 lakhs and capital gains were offered on that basis. KMPL owns two flats in a building known as Om Vikas Apartments situated at Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai and the said flats are regularly given on rent and the rent is declared by KMPL as ‘income from the house property’. Assessee sold his 306 shares for a sum of Rs. 37,51,369/ and earned long term capital gains. AO held that by engineering the sale of the shares of all other shareholders of M/s. KMPL, the assessee effectively transferred the immovable property belonging to the assessee, therefore, it is an indirect way of transferring the immovable properties for lesser consideration and, therefore, the provisions of section 50C of the Act have application to the facts of the case and consequently, AO applied the guideline prices of the flats and worked out the capital gains. Further, AO treated this case as an eligible case for piercing of corporate veil. He accordingly ‘pierced the corporate veil, invoked s. 50C and computed the capital gains by adopting the stamp duty value of the flats.