Shavo Norgren (P) Ltd Vs DCIT ITA No.8101/Mum/2011 dtd 14.12.2012 [Mumbai ITAT] Background: Assessee had taken a plot of land on lease from MIDC in the year 1967 for a lease of 95 years commencing from 1st January, 1967. Assessee had also paid premium to MIDC as per their rules prevalent at that time. In the previous year 2007-08 assessee entered into a MOU for transfer of part of the said land on 9th April 2007, received an advance of Rs.30 lacs and applied to MIDC for their consent. The two plots together with Building thereon were transferred for a total sum of Rs.2,01,57,606. Assessee worked out capital gain of Rs.1,60,38,687 after deducting the value of building at Rs.14,30,220/- and the market value as on 1/4/1981 increased by indexation cost to Rs.26,88,699. The AO applied Sec. 50C of the Income tax Act and considered the market value of the plot of land at Rs.2,39,91,000 and considered this as long term capital gain for the purpose of computation of income.
Recent Updates
Woodland Associates (P.) Ltd. v ITO [ITA No. 5031 (Mum.) of 2011] Mumbai ITAT Background: Assessee during the year had credited the sum of Rs. 4,52,000/- on account of rent. The flats had been let out to Ms. Rekha Jalan, Managing Director of the company for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- per month and Ms. Snehal Jalan who is her daughter at a monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/-. Ms. Rekha Jalan held 81.71% shares in the company whereas Ms. Snehal Jalan held 13.33% shares. The assessee had declared income from property as business income and the actual rent received had been shown as annual value. The property had been held as a business asset and as per memorandum of association, it was business of the company to let out properties. The AO stated that leasing out the property could not be considered as trade or commerce. AO referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143/129 Taxman 70. He, therefore, assessed the rental income under the head “house property”. As regards the fair rental value, the AO contended that letting out the flats to the persons who were controlling the company was only an arrangement to reduce tax. AO after analyzing the comparative rates observed that the average rent charged in respect of similar flat in the same society was 125 per sq.ft. According to the AO, annual value which is defined as sum for which property may be let out from year to year would be the fair rent available in the market. CIT(A) held that the property was covered under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and, therefore, Annual letable value had to be taken as standard rent and therefore, the AO was not justified in taking the market rent.
Rent from let out of flat to a director is Business Income – Mumbai ITAT
Rallis India Ltd v Additional CIT [IT APPEAL NO. 2464 (MUM.) OF 2010] (Mumbai ITAT) Background: The assessee-company declared short term capital gains on sale of flats u/s. 50 of the Act. Out of the flats sold, a flat was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000. The AO addressed a letter, u/s. 50C of the Income Tax Act, to Joint Sub-Registrar, Department of Stamp and Registration, Worli to furnish the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The Joint Sub-Registrar informed that the stamp value of the said property was Rs. 1,86,01,380/-. Since section 50C of the Act speaks of the value adopted for stamp duty purposes, the addition of Rs. 21,01,380/- was made by the AO and the same was confirmed by learned CIT(A).
Stamp duty valuation u/s 50C applicable even in cases of depreciable assets – Mum ITAT
No deduction in certain cases – Specified payment under section 197A(1f) NOTIFICATION NO. 56/2012 [F. NO. 275/53/2012-IT(B)], DATED 31-12-2012 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 under Chapter XVII of the said Act shall be made on the payments of the nature specified below, in case such payment is made by a person to a bank listed in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), excluding a foreign bank, namely:- (i) bank guarantee commission; (ii) cash management service charges; (iii) depository charges on maintenance of DEMAT accounts; (iv) charges for warehousing services for commodities; (v) underwriting service charges; (vi) clearing charges (MICR charges); (vii) credit card or debit card commission for transaction between the merchant establishment and acquirer bank. 2. This notification shall come into force from the Ist day of January, 2013.
No deduction in certain cases – Specified payment under section 197A(1f)
CIT v Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd. [28 taxmann.com 302] –BOMBAY HIGH COURT Background: Assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2004-05 declaring a loss of Rs.277 crores. The AO passed order under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the loss at Rs.276 crores under the normal provisions of the Act and determining the income of Rs.394 crores under the provisions of Section 115 JB of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax on review found that the assessment order appeared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on following two counts: (i) That 50 crores shares of Reliance Infocomm Ltd. (RIL) were transferred at the rate of Rs.1/- per share (the face value per share) to Mr Mukesh Ambani when the market value of the share was Rs.53.01/- per share. Therefore, a sum of Rs.2635 crores was proposed to be taxed as a short term capital gain being a difference between market value per share of Rs.53.71 and face value per share was Rs.1/-. (ii) Amount of Rs.3037 crores received from Reliance Infocomm Ltd. as fees for grant of Indefeasible Right of Connectivity (IRC) for a period of 20 years was income accrued to the assessee in the assessment year 2004-05 itself.
Advance lease income taxable on pro-rata basis as per AS-19 – Bombay HC
My Home Power Ltd v DCIT [ITA NO. 1114 (HYD.) OF 2009 dtd 2.11.2012] Hyderabad ITAT Background: Assessee had filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 28.2.2008 showing a loss of Rs. 86,54,970. The company is engaged in the business of power generation through biomass power generation unit. During the year under consideration it has received 1,74,037 Carbon Emission Reduction Certificates (CERs) popularly known as ‘carbon credits’ for the project activity of switching off fossil fuel from naphtha and diesel to biomass. It has sold 1,70,556 CERs to a foreign company M/s. Noble Carbon Credits Ltd., Ireland and had received an amount of Rs. 12.87 crores. The assessee had accounted this receipt as capital in nature and had not offered the same for taxation. The AO dealt in detail the taxability of sale proceeds arising out of the sale of CERs and held the same to be a revenue receipt since the CERs are a tradable commodity and even quoted in stock exchange. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO and also gave a finding that the said income of the assessee cannot be considered as income from business for the purpose of entitlement for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act.
Carbon credits are not taxable – Hyderabad ITAT
Genesys International Corpn. Ltd. v ACIT [ITA No.6903/Mum/2011 dtd 31.10.2012] Mumbai ITAT Background: Assessee has two undertakings, one located at SEEP2, Mumbai which is a SEZ unit and other located at Bangalore which is STPI unit. Both units are eligible for tax benefit under section 10A of the Act. The Finance Act, 2007 amended section 115JB with effect from 2008-09 for bringing the amount of income to which provisions of section 10A or 10B apply within the purview of MAT. Further, provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 115JB of the Act were inserted by Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 (SEZ Act) w.e.f. 10.2.2006 which provides that provisions of MAT would not apply to income from any business carried on by an entrepreneur or a developer in a unit or SEZ, as the case may be. The assessee reduced the income u/s 10A from MAT computation. The AO did not accept said contention of the assessee and held that the scope of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) was widened by including the income exempt u/s.10A/10B of the Income tax Act in the book profit. The AO stated that section 115JB(6) is applicable to an assessee claiming deduction under section 10AA of the Act and not an assessee claiming deduction under 10A of the Act. Ld CIT (A) after considering the submissions of assessee has confirmed the action of AO.
10A & 10B benefit available even under MAT computation (prior to 1.4.2012) – Mum ITAT
Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that the income of a person under the heads ”profit and gains of business or profession” or “income from other sources’ shall be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting that is regularly employed by the person. It further provides that the Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette, from time to time, accounting standards to be followed by any class of taxpayers or in respect of any class of income. Since the introduction of this provision in the Act, the Central Govt has notified two standards in 1996: (a) Accounting Standard I, relating to disclosure of accounting policies; and (b) Accounting Standard II, relating to disclosure of prior period and extraordinary items and changes in accounting policies. Subsequently, CBDT constituted the Committee to harmonize the Accounting Standards issued by ICAI with the provisions of the Act and also to suggest amendments to the Act necessitated by transition to IFRS.
Tax Accounting Standards: Key Differences
Apollo Consulting Services Corporation v DIT [ITA No: 2983 (Mum) of 2010 dtd 27 July 2012] Mumbai ITAT Background: M/s. Apollo Consulting Services Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ACSC) is a non-resident company incorporated in USA. ACSC and IBM (based in USA) had entered into a Global Agreement which is also known as ‘Base Agreement’ on 11.01.2002. By virtue of this agreement, ACSC agreed to provide IBM, USA and its global subsidiaries certain services. In the background of the Base Agreement, IBM India made deal with ACSC through IIC Systems Private Limited, India (hereinafter referred to as ISPL) for the services to be performed in the USA. During the previous year, as per the agreement between IBM India and ISPL, ACSC provided technical manpower to IBM in USA according to its requirements. Thus, the link between the three entities was that, purchase orders are issued by IBM to ISPL who in turn passed that to ACSC. The entire arrangement was for providing skilled manpower in USA.