CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (Bombay High Court)- S. 28 (iiid) provides that “any profit on the transfer” of the DEPB shall be business profits. Under Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28(iiid)” has to be reduced from the business profits. Under the third Proviso to s. 80HHC (3), in the case of an assessee having an export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crores, the profits referred to in s. 80HHC (3) can be increased by 90% of “the sum referred to in s. 28 (iiid)” only if two conditions are satisfied.
Whether the liability has been deferred or not has to be considered not from the simplistic point of the term ‘defer’ but in context of the incentive scheme for deferral, as is evident from the circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. The subject matter of Circular no.496 dated 25th September, 1987 is Sales Tax Deferral Scheme and applicability of provisions of section 43B of the Act.
There was no transfer of copyright or the right to use the copyright by the foreign company to the tax payer and therefore the payment would not fall within article 13(3)(c) of the Tax Treaty. The reference in Article 13(3)(c) is to “any copyright” and it is not a reference to “any right”. Hence, the payment cannot be said to be in the nature of royalty payment.
A plain reading of Section 76 of the Act indicates that a person who is liable to pay service tax and who has failed to pay such tax is under an obligation to pay, in addition to the tax so payable and interest on such tax, a penalty for such failure. The quantum of penalty has been specified in the provision by laying down the minimum and the maximum limits with a further cap in so far as the maximum limit is concerned.
This decision of the HC reiterates the principle of the binding nature of an AAR ruling and clarifies that a subsequent adverse AAR ruling in respect of another taxpayer, even if given under comparable facts, cannot disturb this position. An AAR ruling continues to be binding unless there is a change in law or facts, which would require the Tax Authority to follow the procedure provided in the ITL. Also, the HC has clarified that the CIT cannot invoke its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside an order passed by a subordinate tax officer who follows a binding AAR ruling.
It is not in dispute that the activity of the assessee is of property promoter. As the property in the hands of the assessee was treated as business asset and not as capital asset, there is no question of invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Section 50C of the Act pertains to determining the full value of the capital asset. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
On further appeal by the respondent-dealer who issued invoices, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2009, reduced the penalty to 10% taking into account that 100% penalty had already been levied on the assessee who claimed Cenvat Credit wrongly. 100% penalty has already been levied on the assessee wrongly claiming the benefit of Cenvat Credit, the view taken by Tribunal in reducing penalty in the case of the respondent cannot be said to be perverse so as to hold that a substantial question of law arises.
Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ITA) deals with tax holidays for eligible businesses. Sub-section (5) of section 80-IA of ITA provides that for the purpose of determining the quantum of the deduction, the profits of the eligible business shall be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the taxpayer. This deeming fiction is applicable from the initial assessment year i.e. the first year of claim of the deduction.
The assessee manufactured cars using the brand name Maruti. It entered into an agreement with Suzuki, Japan, pursuant to which it began manufacturing cars using the brand name Suzuki. The TPO issued a show-cause notice in which he alleged that the substitution of the brand name Maruti for the name Suzuki meant that the assessee had soldthe Maruti brand to Suzuki. On that basis, he determined the arms length sale proceeds at Rs. 4,420 crores.
Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1.4.1994. Sub-section (1) of Section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated at 8% of the gross receipts paid or payable to the assessee in the previous year on account of such business or a sum higher than the aforesaid sum as may be declared by the assessee in his return of income notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sections 28 to 43C of the Act. This income is to be deemed to be the profits and gains of said business chargeable of tax under the head “profits and gains” of business. However, the said provisions are applicable where the gross receipts paid or payable does not exceed Rs.40 lacs.
