Follow Us :

Archive: 14 July 2011

Posts in 14 July 2011

No addition can be made under s 28(iv) in the absence of any business or profession relationships.

July 14, 2011 744 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Kaizen Commercial Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Whether merely because a telecom Company has got licence and has bright future, it can be presumed that contemporaneous value of share, irrespective of its negative net worth on the day when it got licence, is on higher side and hence any addition in the hands of share holder on presumptive basis is tenable – Whether in the absence of any business relations, any addition can be made in the hands of assessee u/s 28(iv).

Commission received by a foreign company for assistance in arranging cargo transportation taxable in India on account of ‘business connection’

July 14, 2011 775 Views 0 comment Print

ADIT v ACM Shipping India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – The taxpayer was wholly or almost wholly securing orders only for ACM UK. The freight invoice issued by the carriers show that the commission was paid by the Indian exporter to the taxpayer directly on behalf of the carriers. Further, the taxpayer was paying 50 percent of the commission earned to ACM UK for their services in getting contract with the ship owners and the customers. There is no evidence to show that the commission paid by the taxpayer was for services rendered outside India.

Transfer pricing – Operating profit of different STP units rendering identical services to related parties should not be considered on a stand-alone basis for computing ALP

July 14, 2011 1625 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT v Birla Soft Ltd. (ITAT, Delhi) -It would be wrong to consider different STP units of the taxpayer on a standalone basis, for the purpose of transfer pricing analysis, wherein the services provided by the units are same/similar and to same Associated Enterprises (‘AEs’). Further, Delhi ITAT also observed that current year data of an uncontrolled transaction is to be used for the purpose of comparability, while examining the international transactions with AEs.

Invocation of s 263 unjustified where Commissioner intended to substitute his own view in place of that of the Assessing Officer without pointing out as to how the action of the Assessing Officer is erroneous in law or on facts

July 14, 2011 360 Views 0 comment Print

Satara Cattle Feed Industries (P) Ltd. v ACIT (ITAT Pune) – The invocation of s 263 is unjustified if the AO has applied mind to the shortfall in income returned after considering the declaration of additional income during the survey in absence of any material or evidence to show that the reasons which have been accepted by the AO are incorrect or that the same was extraneous or false. Order of the AO must suffer from an incorrect assumption of fact or incorrect application of law so as to be considered as erroneous apart from meeting the requirements of the expression “prejudicial to the interests of Revenue”, to justify the invocation of s 263.

Transfer Pricing – As other income of the assessee is excluded from the net profit, the other income of comparable companies should also be excluded from their net profit and the full data of the comparables should also be provided to the assessee

July 14, 2011 456 Views 0 comment Print

Kem Tron Technology (P) Ltd. v CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – As the assessee’s major sales in international market related to associate enterprise section 93E was applicable and a report in Form 3CEB was duly filed along with the return of income by the assessee. The A.O. invoking the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act made addition of Rs.19,72,697 by making upward adjustment in international transaction with the associate enterprise on the ground that similarly placed companies had better margins as compared to the assessee company. While doing so, the A.O. took the net profit of the assessee company at (-) 3.21% instead of 3.26% shown by the assessee, excluding the other income of Rs.80,28,677 from net profit declared by the assessee.

Expression ‘contractor’ does not include within its fold a subcontractor carrying out any work in pursuance of a subcontract with a sub subcontractor in AY 2006–2007

July 14, 2011 1210 Views 0 comment Print

HCC-L&T Purulia Joint Venture v JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case we are concerned with A.Y 2006-07 and, therefore, payments by a subcontractor to sub sub-contractor would not be covered under the provisions of section 194C(2) of the Act. We therefore, agree with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and hold that there is no obligation to deduct tax at source on the part of the assessee in respect of payments made to sub sub-contractors. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) is directed to be deleted.

Limitation period does not apply to withholding tax proceedings – Punjab & Haryana HC

July 14, 2011 1467 Views 0 comment Print

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs M/s H.M.T. Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)- There is no specific provision prescribing any limitation for passing the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.

Notification Amending Form No. 1A vide Notification Dated 14th July 2011

July 14, 2011 931 Views 0 comment Print

(1) These rules may be called the Companies (Central Government’s) General Rules and Forms (Amendment) Rules, 2011. (2) They shall come into force with effect from 24th July, 2011.

Service tax is leviable on Flying Training School & Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Institutes

July 14, 2011 4382 Views 0 comment Print

LETTER [F. NO. 137/132/2010 – SERVICE TAX], DATED 11-5-2011 – Representations have been received seeking clarification regarding leviability of service tax on the Flying Training Institutes providing training for obtaining Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) and on Aircraft Engineering Institutes for obtaining Basic Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licence (BAMEL). CPL and BAMEL are granted by Directorate General of Civil Aviation after conducting required examinations. These institutes have sought to cover-their activity under the exemption clause provided in the definition of “commercial training or coaching centre”, as laid down in section 65(27) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it stood prior to the amendment in Budget of 2011. As per this definition, commercial training or coaching centre ‘does not include pre-school coaching and training centre or any institute or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognised by law for the time being in force. Their contention is that the certificates issued by them are recognised by DGCA and also the course conducted by them are as per the provisions of The Indian Aircraft Act, 1934, the Indian Aircraft Rules, 1937 and are in accordance with Civil Aviation Requirements.

CBDT allows Mahindra Satyam to file revised returns

July 14, 2011 772 Views 0 comment Print

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is believed to have turned down the request of Mahindra Satyam to fully adjust taxes paid by its erstwhile owner Ramalinga Raju on fictitious income. Tech Mahindra had acquired Satyam Computer, after a multi-crore accounting fraud in the company came to light in January 2009. After acquisition, the company was re-branded as Mahindra Satyam.

Search Post by Date
June 2024