ACIT Vs. L&T Western India Toll Bridge Ltd (ITAT Chennai)- It was yelled by the ld.AR that merits of the grounds taken in the cross objection should not be washed away permanently and the assessee should be given an opportunity to revive these issues as and when the proceedings, if reversed, by the higher forums.
In appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, the Revenue assails deletion of additions of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.1,56,388/- made by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of hearing, it was admitted by the ld. DR that the tax effect in this case was less than Rs.3 lakhs. Similarly, for the assessment year 2002-03, the Revenue has assailed the deletion of Rs.5,11,494/-. The tax effect here is also less than Rs.3 lakhs and even below Rs.2 lakhs. we are of the opinion that Circular No.3/2011 of CBDT will apply and due to low tax effect, the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable. There is no case for the Revenue that the issue involved has got any cascading effect over other years or on the assessments of any group of which assessee is a part.
We recently come through a company which providing free software for creation XBRL file. While in Market all companies are charging from Six thousand to thirty Thousand for one year for the software. Software Name is ‘Apex Xbrl Maker Free Edition’ and it is developed by a Kolkata based Software and Web Development Company namely Saltlake Infosolutions Private Limited. The Key Features of Apex Xbrl Maker 2011 Free Edition (Applicable only for MCA Taxonomy 2011) are as follows:
Shri A.S. Bindra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the assessment order, it has been mentioned that due to non-availability of evidence, the assessee has offered this amount as his income. That fact cannot go against the assessee in penalty proceedings as the assessee will be having right to contest the levy of penalty independently, apart from the findings recorded in the assessment order. Therefore, the relevant evidence is admitted as additional evidence and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for readjudication of the penalty proceedings after due consideration of the evidence being placed by the assessee on record. After giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and placing evidence on record, the AO will re-adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty or otherwise in accordance with law. We direct accordingly.
As all of us are aware about the MCA has made it compulsory vide General Circular No.11/2011, New Delhi Dated 07.04.2011 to inform PAN of every Director/Person holding Director Identification Number (DIN) up to 31st May, 2011 if not informed/furnished earlier at the time of applying DIN by such Director . The circular also made it mandatory for all new DIN Applicants to mention their PAN No. in DIN-1 eform
Income-tax Act Benefit u/s. 47(xiv) of the cannot be denied in case there is a delay in allotment of shares to the proprietor on conversion of a proprietary concern into a company
CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (Delhi HC)- Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife‟s name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee.
Novel Inc. Vs. DDIT (Intl. taxation) – The proceeds from sale of Software to Distributors, without granting the right to duplicate / alter / modify the software, cannot be construed as ‘Royalty’, regardless of the fact that the taxpayer choose to describe its product as ‘intellectual value’ in its invoices. The Tribunal held that if the creator himself exploits his work by converting it into end products ready for use and transfers the right to use such end products to another but not further the right to copy the same, it would be a case of transfer of a copyrighted product.
DIT Vs. BBC Worldwise Ltd. (Delhi HC)- Bombay High Court in Set Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further rwould be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. In the said case, Morgan Stanley (supra) as well as Circular No.23 issued by the CBDT was taken into consideration. The Court was also pleased to record that the commission paid to the agent was 15% services performed by the assessee‘s agent in India was in line with the existing industry standards in India at the prevalent time.
CIT Vs. Amadeus India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is limited to determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer (AO). The TPO, on a suo moto basis, cannot take cognizance of any other international transaction not specifically referred to him by the AO.
