It will also be relevant to mention that in the Memorandum explaining the provisions relating to direct taxes in the Finance Act, the above clause has been described under the head `Measures to plug revenue leakages’ and the relevant portion of Memorandum Explaining the Provisions Relating to Direct Taxes is reproduced below:-
Here we summarised the ruling of the Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-666-ITAT-BANG] in the case of Bovis Lend Lease (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the taxability of payments towards reimbursement of cost forservices provided by a group entity. The ITAT held that such payments
The assessee co-op housing society gave permission to a developer to construct 2 floors and 8 flats on the building belonging to the society by using the TDR / FSI available to the developer. In consideration, the developer paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the assessee and Rs. 66 lakhs to its members aggregating Rs. 92 lakhs. The AO took the view that the assessee had relinquished its right “to load TDR and construct additional floors” and as there was no cost of acquisition, the entire consideration of Rs. 26 L was assessable as long-term capital gains. On appeal, the CIT (A) took the view that even the amounts received by the Members were assessable in the assessee’s hands.
The Finance Act, 2004 introduced section 111A in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) prescribing a tax rate of 10 percent on Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) arising from sale of shares on or after 1 October 2004 on a stock exchange which are subject to Securities Transaction Tax (STT).
Conflicting decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning similar payments in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2003] 85 ITD 478 (Delhi ITAT) and DCIT v. Pan AmSat International Systems Inc. [2006] 9 SOT 100 (Delhi ITAT) led to the constitution of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal. It was held that payments made by telecasting companies to satellite companies for telecommunication or broadcasting constitutes royalty under provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) as well as various tax treaties.
Recently, the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. has held that the difference between the market price and the issue price of the shares offered to employees under the Employee Stock Option Scheme (ESOP) is not an allowable expenditure since the loss incurred due to issue of shares at a discount is a notional loss and such notional loss cannot be considered as an allowable expenditure under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Though it was mandatory to record it as an expenditure as per the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) guidelines.
The agitation by the revenue is that the assessee company was not entitled to deduction under section 10A as the CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had commenced manufacture, production of software prior to its registration as STPI and the STPI authorities had granted approval
The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Infrasoft Limited v. ADIT [2009-TIOL-21-ITAT-DEL] has held that the amount received by the taxpayer company for transfer of the right to use the licenced software was not for the use of copyright in the software but only the software as such (which was a copyrighted article) and, therefore, could not be taxed as royalty but as business income under Article 7 of the India-UK Tax Treaty (the tax treaty).
The assessee earned long-term capital gains of Rs. 40.57 L which was not chargeable to tax u/s 54EC. As the said gains were credited to the P&L A/c, the assessee excluded the gains whilst computing “book profits” u/s 115JB in view of the Special Bench judgement in Sutlej Cotton Mills 45 ITD 22 (Cal) (SB) where it had been held that non-taxable capital receipts had to be excluded from book profits. The AO and the CIT (A) rejected the claim. On appeal by the assessee HELD dismissing the appeal:
Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. (ITA Nos.87Del//2008, 4788/Del/2007 and 233/Ahd/ 2006) holds that expenditure relating to exempt income to be disallowed even if assessee has not earned any tax-free income.
