The Finance Act, 2004 introduced section 111A in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) prescribing a tax rate of 10 percent on Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) arising from sale of shares on or after 1 October 2004 on a stock exchange which are subject to Securities Transaction Tax (STT).

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.

Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (ITA Nos.87Del//2008, 4788/Del/2007 and 233/Ahd/ 2006) holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.

A T Kearney Ltd., UK („assessee?), a company engaged in the business of providing management consulting services, carried on its business operations in India through its branch office . The assessee deputed highly experienced personnel to train and develop the local expertise to provide services to Indian clients in line with its global standards. The expatriate employees continued to draw their salaries from the overseas office.

Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.

S. 80HHC; in favor of taxpayer: Post the amendment by Taxation Law Amendment Act, 2005 (effective from 1 April 1998), controversy had arisen as to whether in case of an exporter having export turnover of more than INR100 million (where generally conditions mentioned in section 80HHC cannot be satisfied), the entire sale proceeds of DEPB need to be excluded while calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC or only profit on transfer of DEPB should be excluded.

The taxpayer was a wholly owned subsidiary of Denso Thermal Systems, Italy. The taxpayer was engaged in the business of manufacturing certain automobile products and selling the same in India and abroad. For the impugned assessment year, the taxpayer claimed that the royalty paid to its parent company as revenue expenditure. After perusing the details called for, the AO, relying on the decision of CIT vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd. 148 ITR 272 (Mad) held 25% of the royalty claimed as capital expenditure and disallowed the same. However, perusing the technical collaboration agreement entered by the taxpayer the CIT (A) deleted the addition made on account of 25% of royalty expenditure. The revenue authority preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar, stated that companies with operations in the north-east, Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, will be legally responsible to pay tax on Central excise duty refunds. Companies, such as Balaji Alloys, Raven Bhel and Pee Ell Alloys, moved the income tax appellate tribunal (ITAT) against an income-tax department notice that required them to give the tax.

RECENTLY the President of India was pleased to discharge Hon’ble member of the CESTAT Mr. PK Das, just a day before he was to complete his three year probation period. Can a Member of the Tribunal be sent home just like that? The answer, unfortunately is, `YES’.

Coming to the first point of difference it seems to me that even after the introduction of block of assets concept, there is no change in the legal position to the effect that the assessee^ would be entitled to depreciation even though the assets in question were not actually put to use in the relevant previous year, but were kept ready for being put to use for the purpose of the business. The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, on this question is in C1T vs. Vayithri Plantations Ltd. (1981) 128 ITR 675. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court was concerned with the assessment year 1971-72 and with the claim of development of rebate made by the assessee, Sec.33 of the Act dealt with development rebate. An assessee can c