The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has ruled on the transfer pricing aspects of management services fees paid by the Taxpayer to its regional headquarter company (associated enterprise or AE). The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) that the Taxpayer has not proved the commensurate benefits received for the service fees paid to the AE and, hence, ruled that the payment of the management services was not justified under arm’s length principles.
Once the payment of ‘off-the shelf software’ held not to be chargeable to tax as a royalty on the basis of the certificate obtained from a chartered accountant, no penalty and interest can be levied on the grounds that the assessee did not take prior approval of the assessing officer under section 195(2) of the Act.
It was held that the offshore supply of equipment, even on a CIF basis, under a composite contract is not taxable in India.
Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. Goldcrest Exports v. ITO held that compensation payable for breach of contract to a foreign company would not be taxable in the hands of the foreign company in the absence of a permanent establishment of the foreign company in India. The Tribunal further held that interest included in compensation merges with and partakes the character of compensation itself, and hence, would not be taxable under the tax treaty between India and UK . Therefore, deduction claimed by the assessee for compensation including interest cannot be disallowed on account of non-withholding of taxes therefrom.
:Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Bosch Ltd. v. CIT [2009-TIOL-736-ITAT-BANG]held that the taxpayer company was entitled to claim depreciation on the skill and the know-how brought by the employees of the transferee company classified as ‘business information’ under the category of ‘other identifiable intangibles’ (goodwill) under section 32(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Recently, the Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2010-TII-ITAT-MUM-INTL) dealt with the issue of whether passing of an order by the AO is necessary for filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under section 248 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for a declaration that no tax was deductible on such income. The Tribunal held that Section 248 of the Act does not require any order being passed by the AO as a condition precedent for filing an appeal before CIT(A) . Further, the taxpayer also fulfilled all the necessary conditions required by the provision of the Act. Therefore, the taxpayer was right in filing an appeal before the CIT (A).
ADIT v. Reliance Infocomm Ltd. – It is held that the assessee would be entitled to interest on the refund under the provisions of clause (b) of section 244A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 if the refund became due under an order passed in any appeal or any other proceeding, as referred to in section 240 of the Act.
The taxpayer, a manufacturer and exporter of chemicals had more than 97.5 percent of its sales to its associated enterprise (“AE”). It benchmarked the sales to AEs under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method based on the average price charged by the AEs to the customers. The Revenue observed that the non-AEs who purchased the chemicals paid a higher price and adopted the price charged to the non-AEs as the CUP. The taxpayer stated that the AEs operated in the insulation industry and that the non-AEs were in the aerospace sector, which also resulted in the difference in pricing. It also contended that the AE came into existence for the reason that its ultimate customers required long term warranties on the product and were more comfortable dealing with an American firm than directly with the taxpayer. It was also pointed out that the ALP determined by the Revenue turned out to be higher than even the price ultimately charged to the buyers by the AEs. It also stated that the sale to non-AEs were in small quantities and non-recurrent, which cannot be compared directly with the sales to the AEs. However, the Revenue rejected taxpayer’s contentions after considering various aspects concerning the comparability of sales to non-AEs including differences in turnover, quantity, customer profiles and geography. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the taxpayer and ruled that there was no case for the Revenue in making the adjustments and accordingly, the sales to the AEs were held to be at arm’s length.
The Mumbai bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Kishori Sharad Gaitonde v ITO (ITA No. 1561/M/09) held that for attracting the provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) a capital gains should arise from the sale of land or building or both. However, since in the present case the taxpayer earned capital gains from the transfer of tenancy right which is not a capital asset, being land or building or both, the Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Act was not applicable to the instant case.
The assessee, a statutory body established under the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 for regulating the profession of Chartered Accountants, obtained exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) pursuant to a notification issued by the CBDT. The notification provided that the exemption would not apply to profits and gains of business unless the business was incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts were maintained.
