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.
Recent Updates
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.
Project Management Charges are FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) and detailed explanation on business profits under Article ...
DCIT v WEIZMANN FOREX LTD ITA No.3571/Mum/2011 (Mum ITAT) Assessee Company is engaged in the business of dealing in foreign exchange, money transfer and wind power generation. During the year under consideration, the assessee company had acquired franchise from AFL Pvt Ltd (ALF) – filed its ROI claiming depreciation on franchise rights. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO took a view that depreciation was not available on such things – Aggrieved with the order of the AO assessee contended the issue before the CIT(A) who after analyzing the agreement of franchise allowed the appeal of the assessee. Held that:
Wear & tear is not an essential condition for depreciation on intangible assets
Letter [F.No.500/111/2009-FTD-1(Pt.)], dated 29-5-2012 The Finance Act 2012 has introduced certain clarificatory amendments in Section 2 clause (14), Section 2 clause (47), Section 9 and Section 195, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962 or 01.04.1976, whereby meaning of various terms used in these sections have been clarified in order to remove any doubt regarding their interpretations. 2. These amendments have been introduced retrospectively in order to clarify the legislative intent and state the position of law from the date of coming into effect of these sections in the Act. 3. Doubts have been raised in various quarters about the implication of these amendments on the assessments that have already been completed and attained finality. 4. The Board, after due consideration, hereby directs that in case where assessment proceedings have been completed under section 143(3) of the Act, before the first day of April, 2012, and no notice for reassessment has been issued prior to that date; then such cases shall not be reopened under Section 147/148 of the Act on account of the abovementioned clarificatory amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2012. However, assessment or any other order which stand validated due to the said clarificatory amendments in the Finance Act 2012 would of course be enforced. 5. This may be brought to the notice of all officers in your region immediately.
No reopening for retrospective amendments in Finance Act, 2012 – CBDT
B4U International Holdings Ltd. v DCIT I.T.A.No. 3326/Mum/2006 (Mum ITAT) Finance Act, 2012 introduced a retrospective amendment in the definition of the term ‘royalty’ by inserting Explanation 4 to 6 in s. 9(1)(vi) with retrospective effect from 1.6.1976. The same reads as under:
Retrospective amendment in “Royalty” u/s 9 of the I.T. Act made redundant in view of ...
CIT v Havells India Ltd (Del HC) [ITA No. 55/2012 & ITA No. 57/2012] The assessee, an Indian company, paid Rs. 14.71 lakhs to a US company for ‘KEMA’ certification which was necessary to enable it to sell its products in the European markets. The assessee claimed that though the said amount was ‘fees for technical services’ u/s 9(1)(vii), it was paid “for the purpose of earning income from a source outside India” (i.e. the exports) and so it was not taxable in India u/s 9(1)(vii)(b). The AO & CIT (A) rejected the claim though the Tribunal upheld it. On appeal by the department, HELD reversing the Tribunal:
S. 9(i)(viib): Export sales is not a “source of income outside India”
CHANCHAL KUMAR SIRCAR v ITO 2012-TIOL-268-ITAT-KOL Assessee is an individual. He filed his ROI claiming exemption under section 54EC. It was observed that the assessee had invested the amount in capital gain scheme in scattered manner which meant some amount invested by the assessee when he received part payment and the balance on the receipt of balance payment. The CIT was of the view that assessee ought to have deposited the entire amount in capital gain scheme
Piecemeal deposits of sale proceeds eligible for Sec 54EC benefits
CIT vs. High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd (Madras High Court) The assessee purchased an igni-fluid boiler from its sister concern and on the same day leased it back. The AO & CIT(A) relied on McDowell 154 ITR 148 and held the sale and lease back arrangement to be a sham & camouflage for a loan by the assessee to the sister concern and rejected the assessee’s claim for depreciation. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim on the ground that the transaction was not a “sham”. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal: