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.

This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of M/s ONGC Videsh Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-758-ITAT-DEL] on the issue of allowability of depreciation on participatory right to carry out the hydrocarbon operations, acquired by the Taxpayer, pursuant to a Production Sharing Arrangement (PSA). The ITAT held that the participatory right acquired by the Taxpayer was in the nature of asset, in the form of ‘license’ i.e. license to have an access and to carry out exploration, development and production of hydrocarbon operations. Considering this, it was held that the participatory right is eligible for depreciation under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL).

The ITAT held that for the computation of MAT, profits disclosed as per the audited accounts should be adopted, provided the accounts are prepared in the prescribed format. If the accounts are not so prepared, the Tax Authority may substitute the amount declared as per the Profit and Loss Account (P&L) with the appropriate amount, regardless of the fact that the accounts are certified as complying with the prescribed format by auditors.

In a recent ruling Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Growth Avenue Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) v DCIT [ITA No. 3912/Del/2005] on the issue of inclusion of capital gains in book profits while computing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), where such capital gains are not chargeable to tax under the normal provisions of the ITL. The ITAT held that any adjustments outside the scope of the MAT computation mechanism, under the ITL, is not permissible and since the exclusion of capital gains is not specifically provided therein, a taxpayer is not entitled to such an adjustment while computing book profits for the purpose of MAT.

The Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Sabre Inc. v. DCIT (2009-TIOL- 488-ITAT-DEL) ruled on the taxability of the income earned through Computer Reservation System (CRS) in India. The Tribunal after following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT [2009] 180 Taxman 357 (Del) held that since the income attributable to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India was less than the remuneration paid to the distributor in India by the taxpayer no income was taxable in hands of Sabre Inc.

Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. M/s Saraswati Holding Corpn. Inc. (2009-TIOL-529-ITAT-DEL) ruled on the taxability of the income from the sale of shares in the hands of resident in Mauritius. The Tribunal held that the taxpayer holding tax residence certificate of Mauritius, was entitled to the exemption provided under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 236 ITR 706 (SC).

The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in recent case of Associated Electronic & 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.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. As far as the addition of Rs. 3,30,000 is concerned, it has been held that during the proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 250 of the Act, the assessee furnished a confirmation certificate from M/s Axis Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Faridabad along with PAN number. On asking of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has confirmed that the said liability is still outstanding. In spite of that material, the Assessing Officer made the addition of the amount on the basis that this liability has ceased to exist and the same is not payable by the assessee, and treated the said liability as income by invoking provision of Section 41(1) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), whil

It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that unless a particular asset is used for the purpose of business or provision, depreciation is not allowed. No doubt, as per Section 32(1) of the Act, in order to be entitled to claim depreciation, the asset is to be owned by the assessee and it is also to be used for the purpose of business or profession. However, the expression “used for the purpose of business” when applied to block asset would mean use of block asset and not any specific building machinery, plant or furniture in the said block asset as individual assets have lost their identity after becoming inseparable part of the block asset. That is the only manner in which various provisions can be harmonized.

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.