<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TaxGuru &#187; dcit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://taxguru.in/tag/dcit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://taxguru.in</link>
	<description>Complete Tax Solution</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:47:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Payment made by a member to its stock exchange for VSAT/Lease line/BOLT/Demat charges is not fee for technical services u/s194J</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-made-by-a-member-to-its-stock-exchange-for-vsatlease-lineboltdemat-charges-is-not-fee-for-technical-services-us194j.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-made-by-a-member-to-its-stock-exchange-for-vsatlease-lineboltdemat-charges-is-not-fee-for-technical-services-us194j.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:29:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accountancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[architectural profession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consultancy services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hindu undivided family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interior decoration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lump sum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical engineering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provision of services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 9]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technical consultancy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=19164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the purposes of this clause, fees for technical services means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income of the recipient chargeable under the head Salaries.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payment-made-by-a-member-to-its-stock-exchange-for-vsatlease-lineboltdemat-charges-is-not-fee-for-technical-services-us194j.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Use of Cash Profit / Sales and Cash Profit / Cost emphasized as an appropriate PLI for use of TNMM</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/use-of-cash-profi-t-sales-and-cash-profi-t-cost-emphasized-as-an-appropriate-pli-for-use-of-tnmm.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/use-of-cash-profi-t-sales-and-cash-profi-t-cost-emphasized-as-an-appropriate-pli-for-use-of-tnmm.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aggregate basis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[associated enterprises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automobile industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable assemblies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capacity utilization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash profit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparable companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[component industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international transactions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[level indicator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherson sumi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[operating profit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[profit level]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule 10b]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schefenacker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technical engineering]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=19360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of Schefenacker Motherson Ltd v. ITO, ITA  No. 4459/DEL/07 for AY 2003-04 and schefenacker Motherson Ltd v. DCIT, ITA No.4460/DEL/07 for AY 2004-05, the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), held that cash profit on sales “CP/Sales” or cash profit on total cost excluding depreciation “CP/TCdep” can be adopted as an appropriate profit level indicator (PLI) under Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), to adjust for material differences in the assets utilized between tested party and comparable companies and thereby enable better comparability analysis.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/use-of-cash-profi-t-sales-and-cash-profi-t-cost-emphasized-as-an-appropriate-pli-for-use-of-tnmm.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transfer of trade mark is not transfer of goodwill</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-of-trade-mark-is-not-transfer-of-goodwill.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-of-trade-mark-is-not-transfer-of-goodwill.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brand name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAPITAL GAIN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capital gains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electrical appliances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electrical industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goodwill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharp corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tripartite agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=18867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a very interesting ruling where the difference between the goodwill and the trade mark has been brought out clearly. The Tribunal has observed that the trademark can be transferred separately, either with or without the goodwill of the business whereas goodwill cannot be sold without the business itself and therefore transfer of trademark cannot be regarded as transfer of goodwill.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-of-trade-mark-is-not-transfer-of-goodwill.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In case of gifted Assets, indexation benefit is available from the year of acquisition of the previous owner</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/in-case-of-gifted-assets-indexation-benefit-is-available-from-the-year-of-acquisition-of-the-previous-owner.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/in-case-of-gifted-assets-indexation-benefit-is-available-from-the-year-of-acquisition-of-the-previous-owner.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquisition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capital asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer price index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial assets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holding period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indexation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inflation index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long term capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long term capital gains]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=18301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Special Bench (SB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [ITA No. 7315/Mum/2007] in the case of DCIT vs. Manjula Shah (Taxpayer) which held that, in the case of gifted capital asset, indexation benefit is available to a donee from the year of its acquisition by the previous owner. The SB adopted a purposive construction of the definition of 'Indexed Cost of Acquisition' (ICOA) by looking at the scheme of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), which seeks to grant the benefit of cost and holding period of the previous owner to the donee.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/in-case-of-gifted-assets-indexation-benefit-is-available-from-the-year-of-acquisition-of-the-previous-owner.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transfer of trade mark cannot be considered as transfer of goodwill as they are two separate assets</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-of-trade-mark-cannot-be-considered-as-transfer-of-goodwill-as-they-are-two-separate-assets.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-of-trade-mark-cannot-be-considered-as-transfer-of-goodwill-as-they-are-two-separate-assets.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:58:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brand name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAPITAL GAIN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capital gains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electrical appliances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electrical industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goodwill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharp corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sole license]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tripartite agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=17806</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in recent case of  Associated Electronic &#038; Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2009-TIOL-263- ITAT-BANG) held that transfer of trade mark is not transfer of goodwill as the goodwill of a business cannot be sold without selling business itself. Thus, the trade mark and goodwill are two different assets. Further, since the capital gains on sale of trade mark came into effect from 1 April 2002 there was no capital gain on sale of trade mark for the year under consideration.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/transfer-of-trade-mark-cannot-be-considered-as-transfer-of-goodwill-as-they-are-two-separate-assets.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interest expense cannot be claimed if TDS not deducted</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/without-payment-of-tds-assessee-is-not-eligible-to-claim-interest-expenditure-a.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/without-payment-of-tds-assessee-is-not-eligible-to-claim-interest-expenditure-a.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[central government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[direct taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finance act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leakages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memorandum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royalty fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=17658</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It will also be relevant to mention that in the Memorandum explaining the provisions relating to direct taxes in the Finance Act, the above clause has been described under the head `Measures to plug revenue leakages' and the relevant portion of Memorandum Explaining the Provisions Relating to Direct Taxes is reproduced below:-]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/without-payment-of-tds-assessee-is-not-eligible-to-claim-interest-expenditure-a.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consideration for permission to use TDR / FSI not chargeable to tax: ITAT Mumbai</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-for-permission-to-use-tdr-fsi-not-chargeable-to-tax-itat-mumbai.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-for-permission-to-use-tdr-fsi-not-chargeable-to-tax-itat-mumbai.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acquisition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[co op housing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[housing society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hsg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long term capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long term capital gains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shailaja]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shanti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[srinivasa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tdr]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=17650</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The assessee co-op housing society gave permission to a developer to construct 2 floors and 8 flats on the building belonging to the society by using the TDR / FSI available to the developer. In consideration, the developer paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the assessee and Rs. 66 lakhs to its members aggregating Rs. 92 lakhs. The AO took the view that the assessee had relinquished its right “to load TDR and construct additional floors” and as there was no cost of acquisition, the entire consideration of Rs. 26 L was assessable as long-term capital gains. On appeal, the CIT (A) took the view that even the amounts received by the Members were assessable in the assessee’s hands.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/consideration-for-permission-to-use-tdr-fsi-not-chargeable-to-tax-itat-mumbai.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Payments made by telecasting companies to satellite companies for telecommunication or broadcasting constitutes royalty</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payments-made-by-telecasting-companies-to-satellite-companies-for-telecommunication-or-broadcasting-constitutes-royalty.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payments-made-by-telecasting-companies-to-satellite-companies-for-telecommunication-or-broadcasting-constitutes-royalty.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amsat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asia satellite telecommunications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income tax act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income tax act 1961]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indian tv channels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new skies satellites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relevant tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[satellite companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shin satellite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax treaties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications co]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications ltd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television channel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=17551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conflicting decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning similar payments in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2003] 85 ITD 478 (Delhi ITAT) and DCIT v. Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (Delhi ITAT) led to the constitution of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal. It was held that payments made by telecasting companies to satellite companies for telecommunication or broadcasting constitutes royalty under provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) as well as various tax treaties.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/payments-made-by-telecasting-companies-to-satellite-companies-for-telecommunication-or-broadcasting-constitutes-royalty.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deduction U/s. 80HHC allowable while computing book profit even if there are no normal profits</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/deduction-us-80hhc-allowable-while-computing-book-profit-even-if-there-are-no-normal-profits.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/deduction-us-80hhc-allowable-while-computing-book-profit-even-if-there-are-no-normal-profits.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ajanta pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombay high court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Book Profit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book profits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenmark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sun]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=15467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The assessee’s income was computed u/s 115JB as it had no income under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessee claimed that despite the absence of normal profits, it was eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC in computing the book profits under Expl. (iv) of s. 115JB in accordance with the judgement of the Special Bench in Syncome Formulations 106 ITD 193 (Mum) (SB) and that the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Ajanta Pharma 223 CTR 441 (Bom) (which held that Syncome Formulations was overruled) was not applicable. HELD upholding the assessee’s plea: ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/deduction-us-80hhc-allowable-while-computing-book-profit-even-if-there-are-no-normal-profits.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liability can not be added to income just because they are old or not proved genuine</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/liability-can-not-be-added-to-income-just-because-they-are-old-or-not-proved-genuine.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/liability-can-not-be-added-to-income-just-because-they-are-old-or-not-proved-genuine.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balance sheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bench]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cessation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conscious act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contractual agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liabilities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paragraph 17]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=10776</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section 41(1) concerns with only trading liability and not with any other type of liability; every liability standing in the balance sheet cannot be presumed to be a trading liability; where the assessee has not written off a trading liability in its books then the Assessing Officer cannot invoke section 41(1) merely because the liabilities standing in the books are old or they could not be proved to be genuine by the assessee.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/liability-can-not-be-added-to-income-just-because-they-are-old-or-not-proved-genuine.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Allowability of deduction u/s 33AC to the Assessee using ships/barges owned by the third party</title>
		<link>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/allowability-of-deduction-us-33ac-to-the-assessee-using-shipsbarges-owned-by-the-third-party.html</link>
		<comments>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/allowability-of-deduction-us-33ac-to-the-assessee-using-shipsbarges-owned-by-the-third-party.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax Case Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dcit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[previous year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[profit and loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[profit and loss account]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revenue authorities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory obligation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxguru.in/?p=11517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SUMMARY OF CASE LAW The ships include barges; the ships/barges owned by the third party when operated in the assessee&#8217;s business, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under section 33AC. CASE LAW DETAILS Decided by: ITAT, `C&#8217; BENCH MUMBAI,In The case of: DCIT  v. Orion Agencies Ltd.,  Appeal No.: ITA NO. 1533/Mum/2007, Decided on: [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://taxguru.in/income-tax-case-laws/allowability-of-deduction-us-33ac-to-the-assessee-using-shipsbarges-owned-by-the-third-party.html/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

