The assessee had received interest free deposit in respect of shops given on rent. The Assessing Officer added to the assessee’s income notional interest on the interest free deposit at the rate of 18 per cent simple interest per annum on the ground that by accepting the interest free deposit, a benefit had accrued to the assessee which was chargeable to tax under section 28(iv).
In a case where the partnership deed does not specify the remuneration payable to each individual working partner but lays down the manner of fixing the remuneration, would the assessee- firm be entitled to deduction in respect of remuneration paid to partners?
The assessee filed his return of income which contains a claim for carry forward of losses a day after the due date. The delay of one day in filing the return of income was due to the fact that the assessee had not reached the Central Revenue Building on time because he was sent from one room to the other and by the time he reached the room where his return was to be accepted, it was already 6.00 p.m. and he was told that the return would not be accepted because the counter had been closed.
Infotech Software Dealers Association (hereinafter referred to as “the ISODA” or the “Petitioner”) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act having its headquarters at Mumbai. Members of ISODA are engaged in the business of reselling of computer software products falling under 3 categories – (i) Shrink Wrap Software; (ii) Multiple User Software/Paper License and (iii) Internet Download. The ISODA filed the subject petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration to declare Section 65(1 05)(zzzze) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (as amended by Finance No.2 Act of 2009) (hereinafter referred as “the Finance Act”) in relation to the business activities of the members of the Petitioner as: • Null and void; • Ultra vires and unconstitutional of the provisions of Article 245, Entries 92C and 97 of List-I, Entry 54 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India; and • Contrary to provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 268A of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions raised the following three questions: • Whether software is goods? • Whether supply of software pursuant to the End User License Agreement is to be treated as sale or service? • Whether the Parliament has the legislative competency to levy Service Tax on Information Technology Software Services?
The High Court held that Section 65(105)(zzzze) does not relate to goods as such as it imposes service tax on services provided or to be provided in relation to information technology software. The same can be brought under Entry 97 of List 1 of Schedule VII which relates to the residuary powers of the Parliament to make laws. Thus, the Parliament has the legislative competence to make laws relating to it.
The question as to whether a reimbursement for expenses would form part of the taxable income is not res integra insofar as this Court is concerned. In CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft [2009] 177 Taxman 81 (Bom.), a Division Bench of this Court held that sharing of expenses of the research utilised by the subsidiaries as well as the head office organization would not be income which would be assessable to tax.
Credit for brought forward MAT is to be given from gross demand before charging interest u/s 234B. 2. Interest u/s 244A was allowable on the refundable taxes arrived at after giving credit of brought forward MAT from the gross demand.
The law of limitation has been enacted only to give a finality to a proceedings and not destroy statutory appellate remedy. The Court can condone the delay in spite of the fact the delay is very enormous-, if the Court is satisfied, with the reason stated in the affidavit. At the same time, even a short spell of delay may stare at the appellant if the appellant is not able to give a cogent acceptable reason for the delay.
The Legislature, by inserting sub-clause (vi) to clause(2) of section 17 with effect from 1-4-2009, has prescribed fringe benefits or amenities which are treated to be perquisite. Rule 3(7) prescribes the amenity/benefit by way of valuation; it has the status of the benchmark; if the valuation results in a positive figure, i.e., State Bank of India rate, rate at which the employer grants loan, then it would be treated as a concession; thus, the rule lays down an express method and provides for a basis of ascertaining the value for concession.
What the proviso to Section 112 essentially requires is that where the tax payable in respect of income arising from a listed security, being a long term capital asset, exceeds 10% of the capital gains before indexation, then such excess beyond 10% is liable to be ignored.
