CIT Vs. Jaswand Sons (2010) 328 ITR 442 (P&H) – On this issue, the High Court held that income derived from sale of export incentive cannot be said to be income ‘derived from’ the industrial undertaking and therefore, such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB.
The plea of alternative remedy cannot be accepted as question involved in the present case is of lack of jurisdiction on admitted facts. In the present case, the petitioner furnished all the information and raised a dispute of taxability relying upon the judgment in Kone Elevators (India) Ltds case (supra). In such a situation there could be no question of attempt at tax evasion. Invocation of jurisdiction to impose penalty at the Information Collection Centre was not called for.
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT,, ITA 626/2010 and W.P. 758/2010 dated 12 August 2010, – Bombay High Court rules on prospective operation of Rule 8D and upholds the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D.
The High Court held that notice issued for reopening the assessment which could be rectified under section 154 is invalid.
CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals – section 28(iiid) covers only the “profit” (difference between sale consideration and face value of the DEPB credit) and that the “face value” is assessable u/s 28(iiib) is not correct. The entire amount received on transfer of the DEPB credit is “profits” and falls under s. 28(iiid). There was no basis or justification for the Tribunal to hold that the face value of the DEPB credit can be reduced from the sale consideration. It is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into “face value” and “excess of face value”. The approach of the Tribunal is misconceived and unsustainable. As the assessee had an export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and did not fulfill the conditions set out in the third proviso to s. 80HHC (3), it was not entitled to a deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB.
P&H High Court in a ruling in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT held that Assessee gets title to the properly on the issuance cf an allotment letter and the payment cf instalments is only a consequential action upon which the delivery of possession flows and in calculation of holding period the period from the date of allotment and upto the date of possession will also be counted.
Delhi High Court Ruling: Transfer Pricing – Sec 92 – An important ruling by the Hon’ble High Court wherein it has been held that the methodology to be adopted by the Revenue Authorities for making an adjustment should be equitable and fair, and has ruled on the payment for the use of intangible assets and attributing arm’s length consideration for activities carried out by the licensee, etc. [Maruti Suzuki India Limited – W.P. 6876/2008]
Prudential Assurance Company Limited (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Company’), a sub-account duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) filed a writ petition (Writ petition no.866 of 2010 ) with the Bombay High Court against the show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Commissioner). The Commissioner was seeking to revise an assessment order determined on the basis of a ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (‘the AAR’) in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund (AAR No. 678/2006). The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner and held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) after applying the AAR ruling in petitioner’s own case, cannot be regarded erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the tax department. Further, the High Court also observed that as per section 245S of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the ruling in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund cannot displace the binding character of the advance ruling rendered between the Petitioner and the tax department.
Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT On this issue, the Kerala High Court observed that it was the SIM card which linked the mobile subscriber to the assessee`s network. Therefore, supply of SIM card by the assessee-telecom company was only for the purpose of rendering continued services to the subscriber of the mobile phone. The position was the same so far as recharge coupons or e-topups were concerned which were only air time charges collected from the subscribers in advance under a prepaid scheme.
In a recent decision, Honourable Madras High Court has upheld the legislative competence of levy of service tax on software services by the central government
