CIT Vs. Arthusa Offshore Company (Uttarakhand)- ITAT has erred in law in holding that word ‘tax’ does not include “surcharge” for the purposes of Clause (2) of Article 14 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with USA, and in upholding the decision of the CIT(Appeals), reducing the tax rate applicable to assessee NRC at 60 per cent instead of 65 per cent applied by the AO
The very purpose of entering into agreements between the two foreigners is to acquire the controlling interest which one foreign company held in the Indian company, by other foreign company. This being the dominant purpose of the transaction, the transaction would certainly be subject to municipal laws of India, including the Indian Income Tax Act.
The third installment of know-how fee which related to grant of technical assistance and continuous know-how, in Italy, including training of personnel, in Italy is revenue in nature, any interest paid in relation to delayed payments will also, have to be treated, as one, which is, on revenue account.
The provision of section 147 is not, in any manner, controlled by section 92 nor there is any limit to consideration of any material having nexus with the opinion on the issue of escapement of assessment of income; requirement of section 147 is fulfilled if the AO can legitimately form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; for forming such opinion, any relevant material can be considered and the order of TPO can certainly have nexus for reaching the conclusion that income has been incorrectly assessed or has escaped assessment; in such a situation, it cannot be held that the notice proposing reassessment is vitiated merely because one of the reasons referred to order of TPO.
SHIVSAGAR VEG VS. ACIT It is incumbent upon the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal cannot brush aside the reasons or findings recorded by the lower authorities. It must give reasons and its failure to do so renders its’ order unsustainable
Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd 317 ITR 249 (Del)- Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.
The tribunal was not right in law in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and was wrong in holding that the penalty order passed on 17.02.2004 under Section 271B was within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.
Although, no claim under Section 10A had been made before the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee had made such a claim before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee was fully justified in raising the claim under Section 10A of the said Act
The payment for use of services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source.
Income tax – DTAA – Assessee is incorporated in Netherlands – engaged in airlines business of carrying passengers as well as cargo – gets licence from Airport Authority of India for cargo space – enters into a contract with a company to take care of cargo-booking and handling service on commission basis – While making payments to the outsourced company the assessee adjusts the rent payable to AAI – AO treats the rent deducted from the payments made to the outsourced company as income taxable to tax in India – Tribunal finds it inextricably linked to the cargo handling business for which licence was issued and such rent adjustment cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources – Tribunal has correctly understood the law – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
