Income-tax Appellate Tribunal , in the case of DDIT v. Nederlandsche Overzee Baggermaatschappiji BV. has analysed whether the lease of a dredger would be considered a bare boat charter or a wet lease. After analysis of the facts of the case, it held that the lease was a bare boat lease, and that a dry lease of equipment does not result in a permanent establishment.
ITAT Mumbai in the case of Satellite Television Asia Region v. ADIT held that the Assessing Officer cannot consider the assessee a Permanent Establishment blocker or conduit company when there are commercial reasons for its existence. This means that they cannot tax the entire advertisement revenues in the hands of parent company.
the unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000 is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as applicable for assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000.
Capital gains-Scope of section 50C-Extension of section 50C to purchaser-Section 50C creates a legal fiction for taxing capital gains in the hands of the seller and it cannot be extended for taxing the difference between apparent consideration and valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authorities as undisclosed investment under section 69. This fiction cannot be extended any further and, therefore, cannot be invoked by AO to tax the difference in the hands of the purchaser.
In a recent decision, in the case of Entertainment One India Ltd. v. ITO [2010-TIOL-210-ITAT-MUM] (“the assessee”), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) has held that there is no liability to withhold tax under sections 194C and 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on payments made to producers, directors and actors for financing film production.
The Mumbai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), in its recent ruling in the case of M/s Hinduja TMT Ltd. [2010-T11-18-ITAT-MUM-TP] , has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove the arm’s length nature of its international transactions with associated enterprises. In this regard, the uncontrolled comparable data as well as other relevant details submitted by the assessee must be examined by the Revenue. Arm’s length price (“ALP”) must eventually be established with reference to appropriate uncontrolled comparable data and other relevant details, and by applying the methods prescribed in the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. In the same ruling, on a separate ground of appeal, the Tribunal considered whether the sale of investment made by the assessee was in the nature of capital gain or business income. Based on the facts, the Tribunal has, without giving any findings, restored the file back to the assessing officer (“AO”) so that the AO may take a view, consistent with those taken in earlier assessment years on identical issues, after considering the assessee’s contentions and having regard to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (228 CTR 582; 188 Taxman 140).
In a recent case of SET Satellite Singapore Pte Ltd.1 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“ITAT”) has held that royalty payments made by a resident of Singapore to another Singaporean entity, as consideration of rights to transmit and broadcast matches etc. in India, are not subject to Indian withholding tax requirements. The ITAT in this case relied on Article 12(7) of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty (“Treaty”), which provides that royalty payments will be considered to arise in India, only if the royalty is paid by a resident of India or incurred in connection with its permanent establishment (“PE”) in India and such royalty is borne by such PE.
It is mandatory for the assessee to follow one of the methods prescribed in Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and demonstrate that the international transactions entered with the associated enterprise are at arm’s length.
Where the Assessing Officer has not carried out necessary enquiry which ought to have been carried out for allowing deduction to the assessee under section 40(b), the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263.
Where a forward contract is entered into by the assessee to sell the foreign currency at an agreed price at a future date falling beyond the last date of accounting period, the loss is incurred to the assessee on account of evaluation of the contract on the last date of the accounting period i.e. before the date of maturity of the forward contract
