Reimbursable expenditure and the fee payable for technical services under DTAA between India and USA- the reimbursable expenditure received by the assessee cannot form part of the total income. – since the development of infrastructure falls within the industrial policy of Government of India specific approval may not be required for claiming exemption u/s. 10(6A) of the Act. – what was reimbursed is the service tax paid by the assessee to the Government account. therefore, such an amount cannot form part of technical fee. In other words, it cannot be treated as trading receipt. In view of the above, in our opinion, the reimbursement of service tax cannot form part of the total income of the assessee. – fee received by the assessee towards technical services / consultancy would fall under Article 12 and not under Article 7. Therefore, tax has to be levied only at 15% and not at 20%. – there is no liability to pay the advance tax wherever the tax was deducted at source. Therefore, interest was not chargeable u/s. 234B of the Act.
The assessee had paid a sum of Rs.2 crores to M/s. Procter & Gamble India Ltd (PGI) towards technical know how fees in assessment year 1994-95. The assessee had amortized the expenditure over a period of six years and claimed deduction of Rs.33,33,333/- being 1/6th of the payment during the year.
Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) held that interest income earned on fixed deposit made for the purpose of business should be considered as business income and not as income from other sources. Further, the Tribunal held that salary and welfare expenses of taxpayer’s staff will not be covered under section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) since the expenses are directly related to the Indian Project. The Tribunal also held that the payment made for procurement services cannot be considered to be a payment towards fees for technical services as per India-Korea Tax Treaty (the tax treaty) since procurement services were purely commercial in nature and had nothing to do with rendering of any technical managerial or consultancy services.
ITAT Delhi held that a captive service provider assuming minimal risks, cannot be compared to a large company like Infosys Technologies Limited which assumes all risks leading to greater rewards.
The ITAT Delhi held where a taxpayer engaged in rendering advertising and related services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) is also acting as an intermediary between the AEs and the third party vendor to rent advertisement space from the vendor, costs recovered by the taxpayer from the AEs for such renting and then passed on to the vendors (pass-through costs) would not be value adding costs for the taxpayer and would, therefore, not be taken into account for computing net profit margin (Operating Profit / Total Cost) of the taxpayer for applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
Primarily, the intention with which an assessee starts his activity is the most important factor. If shares are purchased from own funds, with a view to keep the funds in equity shares to earn considerable return on account of enhancement in the value of share over a period then merely because the assessee liquidates its investment within six months
A recent decision of the Special Bench (SB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) [AIT-2010-503-ITAT] in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue of whether settlement of deferred sales tax liability, under an option made available by the statutory authority to pay the net present value (NPV)
Routers and switches are to be included in block of `Computer’ entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60 percent
We have considered the rival contentions in the light of material placed on record vis-à-vis amendment brought in provisions of section 115JAB by the Finance Act, 2009 by insertion of new clause (i). According to the amended provisio
In view of the decision in Broswel Pharmaceutical Inc vs ITO 83 TTJ 126 (All) it is not mandatory on the part of the assessee to move application before the Revenue Authorities for granting of stay of outstanding demand. Accordingly, there is no merit in the argument of the department that the stay application should be rejected outright since the assessee has not moved any petition before the Revenue Authorities seeking stay of the demand. Seeking stay before the lower authorities is directory and not mandatory.
