Join our webinar on Faceless Tax Assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn concepts, challenges, and solutions from expert CA Hari Agarwal, FCA.
DCIT v. Golflink Software Park P Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) – The taxpayer was not only letting out its building for rent, but also carried on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs have been provided. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision of CIT v. National Storage Pvt Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC).
Voith Siemens Hydro Kraftwerkstechnik GMBH & Co KG Vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The Tribunal observed that even though in the contract between the taxpayer and OHPC, the term supervision has been given a specific meaning, the conduct of the taxpayer was not supported by any evidence to demonstrate that it had done any thing other than „supervision‟ as understood in its general meaning.
The Government of India has entered into an Agreement on Social Security with the French Republic. Following the principles of reciprocity this agreement is intended to benefit the employees and employers of both India as well as France. The Agreement has come into force w.e.f. 1s` July, 2011.
G&T Resources (Europe) Ltd. v. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)- The receipts for supply of spare parts used in prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils in the turnkey contract are eligible for presumptive taxation under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It may be noted on the facts of the present case, the supply of spare parts was indivisible part of the entire repair/ revamp contract.
M/s Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITT Delhi)- The Tribunal held that payment made to ward off competition, under a covenant of non-compete, was to get established in the market and to acquire the market as per the facts of the case. The payment made was of a capital nature but could not be considered as an asset.
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs UoI (Gujrat HC at Ahemdabad) Whether the assessee is entitled to waiver of interest u/s 234B & 234C relying on the circular dated 23.05.2006 in which waiver is given on account of non-adjustment of seized cash by the department against the tax liability though at the time of making of application of waiver such circular was superseded by circular dated 26.06.2006 in which no such waiver was permitted. – Assessee’s appeal dismissed.
It is noticed that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 271FA on February 23, 2010, requiring him to attend his office on March 11, 2010, and show cause as to why the penalty under section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him for failure to file the annual information returns within the prescribed time.
It appears that the signatories of e-form 20B of above companies including certifying practicing professionals have not verified the figures of number of shareholders from the records of the company. It can also be inferred that by putting figure of only 1 (one shareholder) in a listed company, the practicing professionals have not discharged their duties prudently and are liable for professional misconduct. The signatory Directors and company secretaries of these companies are also liable for furnishing wrong information in the Form.
