The Tribunal concluded that the sale of rig was precursor to the process of cessation of PE, termination of the contract and movement of equipment in international waters. The rig was situated in India when the process of sale had commenced and substantially completed. The deferral of receipt of part sale consideration and postponement of handing over of the rig was immaterial, so far as tax liability in connection with the sale of PE or its assets are concerned.
Till AY 1996-97 unabsorbed depreciation could be set off against income under any head. From AY 1997-98 to 2001-2002 unabsorbed depreciation could be set off only against business income. From AY 2002-2003 onwards unabsorbed depreciation could again be set off against income under any head of income.
The assessee has taken on lease a theatre complex consisting of five cinema theatres from M/s Satyam Sayi Corporation (P) Ltd,. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has incurred substantial amounts towards consultation charges, interior design, modernization, changing of floor tiles, false ceiling, landscaping, chairs, earth filling etc. According to the learned departmental representative, these expenditures were incurred by the assessee for obta
The learned departmental representative submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer disallowed Rs.8,55,58,000/- towards expenditure claimed as reimbursable. According to learned departmental representative the assessing officer also disallowed a sum of Rs.16,69,069/- under the Article 12 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Govt. of India and USA. Referring to the agreement between the assessee and National Highway Authority of India , the learned departmental representative pointed out that the agreement has two parts. The first part contains General Clauses and the second part contains Special Clauses. In the agreement, there was no difference between reimbu
ACIT v. Louis Berger International Inc. (ITAT Hyderabad) – Referring to article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Government of India and USA, the learned counsel submitted that any amount other than the amount received as consideration for services rendered cannot form part of fee for technical service. Therefore, the reimbursable expenditure cannot constitute fee paid/payable for the services rendered by the assessee. The learned counsel submitted that the reimbursable expenditure by the Government or its department cannot be treated as income of the assessee.
In Topman Exports vs. ITO 318 ITR 87 (Mum)(SB)(AT) the Special Bench held that for purposes of s. 80HHC only the “profit” on sale of DEPB entitlements (i.e. the sale value less the face value) was required to be considered. In an appeal by the department, this judgement has been reversed by the Bombay High Court today, 29th June 2010.
The Applicant sought from the CPIO, ITAT, inspection of records relating to appeals of Escorts Limited & another and information on how third parties can become interveners and inspection of records relating to s. 4 RTI compliance. Information on the procedure to make vigilance complaints was also sought.
The assessee, an Australian company, set up a permanent establishment (PE) in India to render technical services for evaluation of coal deposits and conducting feasibility studies for transportation of iron ore. The AO accepted that the income was business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA
Following HCL Comnet 305 ITR 409 (SC), the Tribunal took the view vide order dated 17.3.2009 that provision for bad debts debited to the P&L A/c could not be added to the “book profits” u/s 115JA. To supercede HCL Comnet, clause (g) was inserted in the Explanation to s. 115JA by the F. A. 2009 w.r.e.f 1.4.1998. The amendment received the assent of the President on 19.8.2009, after the order of the Tribunal was passed. The department filed a MA contending that in view of the said retrospective amendment, there was a “mistake apparent from the record”. HELD dismissing the application:
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for asst. year 2006- 07 declaring the income under the head Capital Gains at Rs. 28,767,565/-, which are related to the gains obtained on sale of three immovable properties.
