A host of companies from Mumbai, said to be 367 in number and mostly multinational in nature, have moved the recently set up dispute resolution panel (DRP) to resolve issues related to cross-border taxation. An official in the I-T department said except two, all of the companies have chosen DRP instead of the conventional channel of appeal — that of approaching the commissioner (appeal).

Those trying to evade the taxman may find that showing a lower income has just got tougher. The Bombay high court on Thursday, in a significant ruling, held that the income-tax department can rely on any relatable document when it comes to a block assessment. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud essentially made it easier for the tax officials to add or join other monies into the `income’ bracket based on surveys or search and seizures

Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara (Taxpayer) v ACIT. [2009-TIOL-789-ITAT-MUM] held that where a transfer of shares is made conditional upon fulfillment of certain covenants by the parties, the transfer can be regarded as complete only upon the fulfillment of such covenants. In the facts of the present case where the Taxpayer entered into an agreement to sell the shares that were held, the ITAT held that the transfer by way of extinguishment of rights did not arise on mere execution of the agreement to sell.

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.

If there is a discontinuance of business then sum received by partners after discontinuation would be taxed as income in the hands of recipient; receipts under the arbitration award, by the partners after dissolution of the firm would ordinarily be capital receipts in their hands when received.

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.

It would depend upon facts of each case whether all the three ingredients to discharge the onus to prove cash credit have been proved by the assessee or not; if an NRI, engaged in business of real estate development with substantial means, decided to invest in real estate in India, genuineness of same cannot be doubted unless there is any evidence to contrary.

The Taxpayer incurred interest expenditure on the funds borrowed for investing in shares of a company, with a view to acquire controlling interest. The ITAT held that the interest expenditure incurred is not allowable under Section 57(iii)(Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), since it is not incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of earning dividend income.

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 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.