The Chennai Tribunal in the case of Quintegra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had considered the applicability of Section 28(iv) of the Act in the case of amalgamation. In that case the CIT(A) held that differential amount between share issued and net assets taken over, being balancing figure, did not represent income assessable under Section 28(iv) of the Act. The view of CIT(A) had been upheld by the Tribunal.
Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
The Karnataka HC has held that the reduction in the share of partners after the reconstitution of partnership firms does not amount to a taxable transfer. Further, it reaffirmed that, tax planning within the frame work of law is permitted.The principles laid down in this decision can also be applied to the limited liability partnerships, in similar circumstances.
The taxpayer instead of developing the land, transferred the development rights in respect of part of the land to a separate construction company.As per the agreement, the taxpayer jointly with the trust was required to convey the land to the proposed buyers. Instead of developing land, the taxpayer parted with the development rights in respect of part of the land forever. The possession of the land had also been given during the year along with development rights. This was an independent activity having no connection with the development of the remaining part of the land.
Provisions of section 40(a)(i) as it existed prior to it’s amendment by Finance Act, 2003, with “effect from 1-4-2004 provided for disallowance of payment made to a non-resident only where tax is not deducted at source’ on such payment at source. A similar payment to a resident does not result in disallowance in the event of non-deduction of tax at source, Thus a non- resident left with a choice of dealing with’ a resident for a non-resident in business would opt to deal with a resident rather than anon-resident owing to the provisions of section 40(a)(i).
As regards allegation of Withdrawal of exemption from Import Duty, it has been submitted that import of medical equipment had taken place in 1990 and does not pertain to the period under discussion. The duty exemption was withdrawn citing certain noncompliance, assessee has filed appeal before CESTAT challenging the order of withdrawal and that the assessee has complied with all the terms for exemption. The matter is subjudice before the said Tribunal. However, the machineries imported are used by the Hospital namely remote control X-ray system and whole body C.T. Scan. The exemption is with respect to duty under Customs Act and does not make the assessee non-charitable. It continues to render medical relief.
In order to avoid the last-minute rush for customers paying their income-tax dues, the Reserve Bank on Friday said tax payers may use select branches of some public and private sector banks to remit their dues in advance. Some of the branches of State Bank of India, State Bank of Travancore, State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Patiala, Allahabad Bank, Andhra Bank, Bank of India are authorized to accept payment of I-T dues either by cash or cheque, RBI said in a release.
ITAT Mumbai in this case was of the view that the perusal of AS 14 does not support the contention of the taxpayer that the investment by the taxpayer over the net assets taken over should be treated as goodwill. It was held that unless the fair valuation of assets, including any goodwill, is carried out and investment is earmarked towards purchase of goodwill, there is no question of apportioning any amount of consideration towards purchase of goodwill. The consideration in the form of cancellation of investments cannot be said to have been made for purchase of assets at book value, when the fair value of each asset and liability is much higher.
