Abbey Business Services (India) (P.) Ltd v DCIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 346 (Bangalore – Trib.) Facts of the case: The assessee-Indian company(Abbey India) incorporated on 22-1-2004 under the Companies Act, 1956 entered into an agreement for secondment of staff with its overseas parent company (Abbey National Plc., UK) on 4-2-2004. The secondment agreement contained inter alia the following clauses 3.2 to 3.6 3.2 Particular Secondments Abbey India and Abbey UK shall complete, sign and date a Secondment Term Sheet in respect of each employee agreed between them to be seconded to Abbey India in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Recent Updates
Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd v DCIT [IT APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2010 dtd 12.07.0212] Delhi High Court Facts of the case: The assessee had entered into a lease agreement with NOIDA on 06.01.1989 by which the land in question was demised for a period of 90 years. The assessee was entitled to construct an office complex on the land. The assessee was required to pay premium of Rs. 2,53,96,993/- to NOIDA at the time of the allotment, or demise. In addition, under the lease deed, the assessee had to pay annual lease rent @ 2.5 per cent of the premium. The lease rent could be enhanced after 12 years. The assessee amortized the expenditure by way of premium over the period of lease, and claimed deduction of Rs. 2,75,045/- in the assessment year. The AO held that lease of land for 90 years conferred a benefit of enduring nature to the assessee, particularly in the light of the definition of the expression “immovable property” furnished in section 269UA(d)(i) and, consequently, it was in the nature of capital expenditure. This amount was, as a result not allowed as deduction.
Lease premium paid in respect of 90 years’ lease is not a revenue expenditure – ...
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. v JCIT [TC(A). No. 1123 of 2005] (Madras High Court) Background: The assessee during the relevant assessment year deducted prior period expenses of Rs 96,94,693 from book profits while computing MAT under section 115JA. The Assessing Authority viewed that as per the provisions of the Companies Act, prior year adjustments could not be reduced for arriving at the net profit of that particular year. The AO held that the computation done by the assessee was not in accordance with Section 115JA of the Act.
Prior period expenses allowable as a deduction from book profits while computing MAT – Madras ...
CIT v Fortis Financial Services Ltd [ITA Nos.243/2011 & 244/2011] (Delhi HC) Background: The assessee was engaged in business of providing financial services. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that an amount of interest of Rs 46,63,619/- was not included in the return. Similarly, Rs.4,13,82,323/- and Rs.5,28,16,681/- towards ‘bill discounting charges’, in respect of assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 were not included and therefore, added these amounts in his assessment order. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. AO levied penalty, in respect of two assessment years and after considering the reply, passed two orders under Section 13 of the Act imposing the penalty for concealment or furnishing accurate particulars of chargeable interest. The CIT (A), deleted the said penalty on the ground that the issue/question raised related to honest and bona fide difference of legal opinion on whether bill “discounting charges” should be treated as interest or not for the purpose of the said Act. The tribunal upheld the said decision.
Penalty – Where two legal views are not plausible, assessee cannot contend it to be ...
UE Trade Corporation (India) Ltd v DCIT [ITA No.2303/Del/2011] (Delhi ITAT) Background: The assessee was engaged in trading in agricultural products. During the course of assessment proceedings from the tax audit report in Form No.3CD, the Assessing Officer noted that the tax auditor had quantified the amount of 40,41,233/- disallowable under sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, in computation of income the assessee had added back only Rs.20,16,778/-. The remaining amount of Rs.20,24,455/- was therefore, disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of TDS – Delhi ITAT
Smt Girija Reddy v ITO [IT Appeal No. 297 (Hyd.) of 2012] (Hyderabad ITAT) Background: During the year under consideration, the assessee, a partner in the firm M/s. Montage Manufacturers, retired and her account had been credited by the firm with Rs. 7,95,88,639 being her share of goodwill. The Assessing Officer held that the crediting of the amount of Rs. 7,95,88,639 in lieu of the assessee’s share of goodwill on her retirement also amounting to transfer, and therefore, such receipt is liable for capital gains tax, as her right in the firm is a capital asset and extinguishment thereof amounts to transfer.
Lumpsum consideration received on retirement is chargeable to capital gains – Hyderabad ITAT
Prakash Leasing Ltd v DCIT [IT APPEAL NO.2557 OF 2005] (Karnataka HC) Background: The assessee company is engaged in the business of finance and leasing. During the year under consideration, the assessee company had purchased vehicles and had leased out the same. Assessing Authority was of the view that if the vehicles were purchased by this alleged lessees, the ownership of the vehicles lies only with them and not with the assessee company. Relying on the statements of 35 persons, the truck drivers, it was held that they have purchased the vehicles under the financial assistance from the assessee and therefore, the assessee is not the owner of the 36 motor vehicles owned and therefore, he is not entitled to depreciation. Similarly, 26 persons to whom summons had been issued did not turn up. Therefore, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed on these vehicles allegedly leased to the 26 persons.
Lessor is entitled to depreciation even if lessees use the assets in their business – ...
ACIT v Result Services (P) Ltd [IT Appeal NO. 2846 (DELHI) OF 2011] (Delhi ITAT) Background: The assessee company is a 100% subsidiary of the holding company M/s McCann-Erickson (India) Pvt. Ltd. M/s McCann Erickson has taken on rent office premises in Delhi and Mumbai vide separate lease deeds with the landlords. M/s McCann has permitted common use of the above premises by the assessee company. The full rent for the premises have been paid directly by the holding company to the landlords after deducting tax at source u/s 194-I of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee paid Rs. 56,23,456/- to M/s McCann towards its portion of rent on account of the above use of office premises. The AO has disallowed the above payment u/s 40(a)(ia) by holding that TDS should also have been deducted by the appellant company on the above amount u/s 194-I of the Act.
Reimbursement of rent not subject to TDS u/s 194-I – Delhi ITAT
CIT v Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P.) Ltd. [2012] 23 taxmann.com 23 (Bombay HC) Facts of the case: Assessee had claimed in his return for A.Y. 2004-05 a deduction under section 43B in respect of payment of SEBI fees of Rs. 10,00,000 each paid on 16th July, 2004 and 29th April, 2004 i.e. during the financial year 2004-05. Thus, admittedly, for the relevant assessment year viz. 2004-05, the assessee was not entitled to a deduction in respect of the said payments. In the course of assessment proceedings before the AO, the assessee stated that the claim was made inadvertently. The respondent, however, made a claim of Rs. 40,00,000 under section 43B in respect of payment of the SEBI fees on 9th May, 2003 i.e. in the assessment year 2004-05. The AO rejected the claim on the ground that he had no authority to allow any relief or deduction which had not been claimed in the return. CIT(A) and ITAT ruled in assessee’s favour and allowed the deduction. Hence, the instant Departmental appeal.