Gajendra Kumar T Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -Assessee was eligible for setting of losses of business of dealing in derivatives, incurred in the assessment years prior to the assessment year 2006-07, against the profits of the same business in assessment year 2006-07.
Symantec software Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Symantec Software Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai (Taxpayer), on transfer pricing issues arising from provision of marketing support and consulting services by the Taxpayer to its Associated enterprise (AE). The Tribunal ruled in the favour of the Revenue for all issues except one issue which was decided in the favour of the Taxpayer.
The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT(ITAT Mumbai) – The stage at which set off of carried forward long term capital loss is to be given is subsequent to the stage at which income under the head capital gains is computed and deduction under section 54EC is to be given in the course of the latter. In this view of the matter, the question of setting off brought forward long term capital loss arises only after the income under the head capital gains is computed and that the processing in computing the income under the head capital gains must also taken into account section 54EC as well.
DCIT vs. Nalwa Investments Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Though the computation of s. 14A disallowance was not made, the figures of dividend and interest were stated in the P&L A/c. Even the tax auditors did not state that s. 14A disallowance should be made. As there is no allegation by the AO that there was collusion between the auditor and the assessee to ignore s. 14A, it cannot be said that the explanation was not bona fide. Further, as Rule 8D was not enacted at the time, segregation of expenditure relatable to tax-free income would be disputable and lead to bona fide difference in opinion. So, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
The provisions of section 153C are analogous to section 158BD and, therefore, decisions rendered with reference to the provisions of section 158BD would apply with reference to the cases falling u/s 153C unless the context requires otherwise. The Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra) after considering the provisions of section 158BD held that:
ACIT v Viceroy Hotels Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) – The payment made by the assessee to the non-resident for only providing advisory services and opinions for the improvement of existing facilities in the hotels for meeting international standards would not fall within ambit of “fees for included services” as enumerated in Art 12(4) of the DTAA between India and USA. The provisions of s 195 were also not applicable and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default within the meaning of s 201(1).
Mahendra C Shah vs. Addl CIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The fact that the assessee borrowed for the purpose of buying shares is not conclusive that the assessee intended to do business in shares and not merely invest in them if the interest is capitalized as cost of the shares & not claimed as a revenue expenditure (Shanmugam 120 ITD 469 (Pune) followed). The fact of borrowing cannot be held against the assessee if there are other predominating factors in favour. Also as the assessee has own funds, it can be presumed that the shares were bought out of those funds.
The income received by the assessee (Sachin Tendulkar) from modelling and appearing in T.V. commercials and similar activities can be termed as income derived from the profession of an artist. As admitted by the ld. D.R., the assessee can have more than one profession. Therefore, there is no bar on the part of the assessee to have its second profession as an artist apart from playing cricket. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 5,92,31,211/- received by the assessee amounts to income derived by the assessee in the exercise of his profession as an artist and therefore entitled to deduction u/s 80RR of the Act.
Recently in the case of ACIT v. Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 1605 (Del) of 2010], the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, held that payments made to non-resident freight forwarders are not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the payer is not liable to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act. Consequently, there is no question of disallowance of the amounts paid to non-resident freight forwarders under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
Manori Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3), Mumbai.The appellant has purchased debts of amount due to Rose Patel Mercantile Co. Ltd. for Rs.10,85,000/- by paying the said amount on 10-1-1996 Rs. 5,00,000/- and on 29-1-1996 Rs. 5,85,000/-. The amount was due from Qualitron Components Ltd. Unfortunately due to losses the company closed down its operations and ultimately wound up by the order of Gujarat High Court. The Assessing Officer has clearly pointed out that the said debts of Rs. 10,85,000/- was not trading debt. Therefore the conditions specified u/s. 16(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) is not fulfilled as the amount has not been taken into consideration while arriving to the profit of the appellant company.
