The assessee, a co-op credit society, was engaged in providing credit facilities to its members and also marketing the agricultural produce of its members. The assessee had surplus funds which it invested in short-term deposits with banks and govt securities. The question arose whether the said interest earned on the said deposits was “business profits” and eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).

Thus, the attendant circumstances of the case, the process of purchase of land, conversion thereof and sale, compel us to come to the conclusion that the * purchase of land, in itself, was with an intention to sell at a profit in the form of an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ and hence though it is an isolated’ transaction the income thereon can still be considered as business income.

The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal (see 122 TTJ (Mum) 87). On appeal by the Revenue, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The income attributable to the operations of developing/producing breeder seeds or hybrid germplasm or parent hybrid seed containing desired traits cannot be treated as agricultural income and should be treated as business income.

It depends on the facts of each transactions, whether the letting out of the property is incidental and subservient dominant object of selling the property or not. If the property has merely been let out b> the assessee then the same cannot be held to be exploitation of the property for commercial purpose in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Shambhu Investment (supra). We. therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AC) for fresh consideration in the light of aforementioned observation.

The Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of Oracle India (P) Ltd. V. ACIT (2009-TIOL-540-ITAT-DEL) (the taxpayer) held that section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) overrides the provisions relating to computation of business income only and thus in relation to international transactions, the specific provisions embodied in Chapter X (section 92 – 92F) shall override the general provisions embodied in section 40A of the Act. Hence, once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepts the arm’s length character of any international transaction, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not make an adjustment in relation to that transaction under section 40A(2) of the Act.

Coming to the general proposition regarding condonation of delay, the learned counsel relied on a number of cases, which have already been summarized. In the case of Shakuntala Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that liberal construction should be placed on the words “sufficient cause” provided that no negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to the assessee. In this case, negligence is apparent when after taking the relevant plea before the lower authorities, the assessee chose not to file appeal before the Tribunal after filing appeal for assessment year 1998-99. In the case of O.P. Kathpalia (supra), the facts were quite different as there were interpolations in the order sought to be appealed against, which required correction or clarification. In the case of Kuppuswamy Gownder (super), the Hon’ble Court held that a liber

This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench (SB) of Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. (Taxpayer) vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1294 (Kol) of 2008) in which the SB held that, prior to financial year 2005-06 (assessment year 2006-07), derivative transactions in shares were covered by the definition of speculative transactions (ST). The SB further held that the exception to the definition of ST, from tax year 2005-06, in respect of eligible derivative transactions carried out on recognized stock exchanges, is not clarificatory in nature and does not have a retrospective effect for earlier years.

This article summarizes ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of DCIT v Dolphin Drilling Pte. Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-754- 1TAT-DEL]. The ITAT held that the conversion of business income earned in foreign currency into INR, in accordance with Rule 115 (Rule) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), is to be made by adopting the conversion rate prevailing at the end of the tax year. It also held that the Taxpayer, a company incorporated in Singapore and engaged in the business of hiring out drill-ship in India, is entitled to claim depreciation on the value of the drill-ship.

The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that in this case interest from deposit was offered as business income and was also assessed as business income and therefore, automatically once it is assessed as business income then the same becomes eligible for deduction u/s.10B.