Vipin P. Mehta v ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – ITAT accepts the assessee’s claim that he had the declarations of the payees in the prescribed form before him at the time when the interest was paid, he was not liable to deduct tax therefrom under section 194A. If he was not liable to deduct tax, section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted. There is no other ground taken by the Income-tax authorities to disallow the interest.
CIT v Kokilaben A Shah (Gujrat HC) – Tribunal observed that gift was received through normal banking channel. Identity of donor was disclosed and established. Assessee had furnished complete details of the gift. Tribunal noted that none of the departmental authorities made any attempt to find out whether the explanation of the assessee was false. Tribunal relied on decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of National Textiles v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 249 ITR 125, wherein Bench observed that if the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, it would not lead to inference that assessee’s case is false. We are also in broad agreement with the same.
Six Continents Hotels Inc. v DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Marketing and reservation contribution received by the assessee, non-resident, owner of a trademark from Indian hotel owners with a corresponding obligation to use it for the agreed purposes are not Royalty or Fees for Included Services and they are in the nature of business income and since the assessee does not have a PE in India, the same are not taxable in India.
Asserting that he has no hesitation in subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of Lokpal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday ruled out inclusion of higher judiciary within the ambit of the anti-corruption ombudsman. Bringing higher judiciary under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal would be contrary to the Constitutional scheme of things, he said while voicing confidence that a national consensus would be evolved on the proposeed Lokpal Bill.
