E2 Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO- Learned CIT(A) has passed a very detailed order in the assessment year 2002-03 and rightly came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. From the assessment order, we find that according to the AO, it is not a new undertaking for the purpose of exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. Factually, it is also correct that the undertaking was already engaged in exporting software before it became a STP unit. The STP was notified in March, 1993 but not in Software Technology Park. In the year 2001, a company was formed by conversion of the firm and it started production in STP unit after getting approval.
Sita Jain & Ors. v. ACIT & Anr. (ITAT Delhi) – We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the subsequent decision has upheld grant of exemption u/s 54B in a case where land was purchased in the joint name. The ITAT had discussed this issue in the case of Smt. Saraswati Swaminathan reported in 116 ITD 234 and has observed that the object of section 54EC is to utilize the sale proceed of long term capital gain in the purchase of specified bonds.
Atos Origin IT Services Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Director of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee who was tax resident of Singapore had entered into a hubbing agreement for providing data processing support to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) a non resident company engaged in the business of banking in India. Assessee receive amount from SCB India for use of disc space alongwith embedded software in the hardware of the assessee at its data centre in Singapore of the infrastructure of the assessee, whether CIT(A) was justified in treating the income earned by the assessee was of the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12(3) of DTAA and also within the meaning of clause (iii) of Explanation (2) below Sec.9(vi) of the Income tax Act. Held, No
Industrial Thermoplastics Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether the disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax on interest payment by the assessee to a concern covered u/s 40A(2) though the assessee has explained that there is no taxable income of the corporation and the defects in Form 15H are curable and cannot be considered without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects. – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
Indusind Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether interest on government securities will become taxable on the date of coupon date as the assessee receives the right of the interest in the said securities only on the said date and it does not become due on day to day basis. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
HSBC Asset Management (India) Private Limited Vs DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Pre-operative expenses and registration fee paid to SEBI are allowable as intangible asset and assessee can claim depreciation on the same and AO cannot question the allowability if same was allowed in the earlier AY.
Bachhraj Factories Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- in regard to 14 bighas, the assessee was found to be a trespasser. The law does not recognize the rights of a trespasser. Ordinarily, it is said that the possession is the nine point of ownership. The possessor has got right over the property and his right cannot be challenged by any one except the true owner. Undoubtedly, for some time, the assessee was the possessor of the land and building. But from the facts culled out from the records, it cannot be concluded that the possessory rights of the assessee bear any legal recognition. Unless such rights are protected by law to associate the word ‘right’ with the said type of possession will be a misnomer, since right is a legally protected interest.
DCIT Vs Mr Sanjeev R Kanwar (ITAT Mumbai) – For making additions, FIR is contemporaneous evidence and the contents of the same cannot be ignored in the light of self-serving documents. Human conduct and human probabilities are to be given weightage over the self generated evidences.
Harish P. Mashruwala v. Asst. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In this case, tax sought to be evaded is very clear as the tax rate applicable is 30% whereas the assessee has paid 20%. The tax sought to be evaded was because of the lower rate of tax paid and not because of any addition to the income and, therefore, provisions of Explanation 1 are not applicable. The penalty is imposable under the main provision and there is no need to refer to any Explanations. As regards the merit of the case, the claim of the assessee that amount paid for receiving the gift was from the cash received on surrender of tenancy right is not supported by any evidence.
Though I had to face inevitable struggles in legal profession even after having the required qualities to succeed in profession, I always feel that the legal profession is one of the noble professions which can contribute alot to the society apart from the personal development of that particular professional. When it comes to law, I always felt that it is not important as to which college one studies, and it all depends upon the encouragement provided by few faculty members and alot depends upon the interest of that particular student to excel in his studies. I have had the privilege of associating with highly talented students even in ordinary law colleges or Government Law Colleges in this Country. It is true that a law student requires some guidance and he should have good understanding of the legal profession and the requirement of possessing certain basic qualities like drafting, thinking, logical thinking, hard-work, planning etc.
