M/s. Converge Labs Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘Converge’) is a 100% export oriented unit (‘EOU’) operating under the Software Technology Parks of India (‘STPI’) Scheme and is engaged in the development and export of software. Notification No. 140/91-Cus dated 22nd October 1991 (‘subject Notification’), granted exemption from the Customs Duty to goods imported into India by a 100% EOU under the STPI Scheme subject to certain specified conditions.
Based on the aforementioned observation, the CESTAT held that the software imported by Appellant was only modified packaged software and not „Customized Software? and would not be eligible to the exemption under the subject notification, which applies only to the Custom designed software. Hence, CESTAT upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and rejected the appeal.
M/s. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. („the Appellants?) were engaged in the food and confectionary business. They had entered into an agreement with M/s. Sagar to permit them to run restaurants in the name of “Nirulas” as per the specified plans with regard to the location of the restaurant, area, interiors and other details. As per the terms of the agreement, it is the Appellants who decide the items that are to be sold by the restaurant, the method of preparation of the items, the quality and the prices of the items. The Appellants have even placed their employees in the restaurants to supervise the operations.
S. 70, 115AD; A/y 2005-06; in favor of taxpayer:- Taxpayer, a FII, earned short-term capital gains on sale of shares which it bifurcated as pre and post 30 September 2004 (pre and post STT), chargeable to tax at 30% and 10%, respectively under section 115AD. It also suffered short-term capital loss during both these periods. It set-off pre-STT short-term capital loss against pre-STT short-term capital gain and also post-STT short- term capital loss against left over balance of pre-STT short-term capital gain. The Revenue, however, al owed set-off of post-STT short-term capital loss only against post-STT short-term capital gain.
Ss. 2(1A), 115JB; A/y 2005-06; in favor of taxpayer: Profits arising on transfer of rural agricultural land amounts to agricultural income under section 2(1A). Such income cannot be included in the total income under section 10(1). Section 115JB provides that any income, listed under section 10, other than the ones listed in clause (38), shall be reduced from the book profit.
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. 9, Treaty with South Africa; in favor of taxpayer: – Z, a South African company, offered to promote and market the products of the taxpayer, an Indian company, on commission basis. Z will procure and negotiate orders and forward these to the taxpayer. The taxpayer will execute the orders directly and will receive the consideration in India. Z will render all services outside India and will not maintain any PE in India.
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.
S. 271(1)(c); in favor of taxpayer : The taxpayer was a trust organized in the US and was a resident of the US. As regards India, it was registered with SEBI as a sub- account of M/s Fidelity Management Resources Co. It filed a return of income declaring short-term capital gains and dividend income. Thereafter, based on an AAR ruling in case of XZY/ABC Equity Fund (2005) (250 ITR 194), the taxpayer filed a revised return of income,
The assessee wrote off an amount as a “bad debt” in its accounts and claimed a deduction u/s 36 (1) (vii). The AO asked the assessee to furnish information as to the names and addresses of the debtors, copies of ledger accounts and efforts made to realize these dues. On failure by the assessee to furnish the information, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the onus to prove that the debt was a bad debt was on the assessee which had not been discharged.
