Assessee has produced valuation report at the time of purchase as well as sale. In Remand, Assessing Officer has not pointed out any lacunae in the same. Moreover, the cost of land so bifurcated was being already reflected in the books of accounts and no depreciation was claimed on that account. In the case of C.I.T. vs. D.C. Ramachandra Rao 236 ITR 51, Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that it is possible to bifurcate the capital gain arising out of sell of land and building, even if, they are sold as one unit. Land is an independent and identifiable capital asset and it continues to remain so, even after construction of building thereon
Provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) would apply only to the expenditure which remain payable as at the end of the relevant financial year. Assessee entitled to claim deduction of expenses if the TDS deducted there on is remitted before the due date for filing the return of income.
Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that similar action was taken by the AO for the assessment year 2003-0-4 also, which was reversed in the first appeal. He placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal on 13-08-2009 in ITA No.4960/Mum/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04 by which the Revenue’s appeal, under similar circumstances, came to be dismissed. A copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order of the Tribunal for the earlier year, was also placed on record by which the Revenue’s appeal has been dismissed. The ld. DR was fair enough to concede that the facts and circumstances of the instant year are similar to those for the assessment year 2003-04. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue.
Appellant had shown receipt of a sum ofRs.45,67,375/- on account of job work from Sunita Crimpers and further receipts of Rs.13,06,422/- on account of labour charges. In the tax audit report it has been mentioned that Sunita Crimpers had made the total payment of Rs.59,29,759/- i.e. a sum of Rs.58,37,799/- should paid on account of job work charges and further a sum of Rs.59,962/- on account of purchase of oil by Sunita Crimpers. It is also a fact that the activity of texturising of yarn was controlled by the Excise and therefore related excise recorded were maintained.
ITAT held that the correct nature of transactions is sale of product and not any fees for technical services requiring deduction of tax at source.
Addition of Rs.19.14 crore has been made on the basis of the assessee’s operating margin from its total operations within and outside India arising due to both the controlled and uncontrolled transactions with the associated enterprises and nonassociated enterprises. The addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment can be made by comparing the assessee’s result from the international transactions with the AEs with those from comparable uncontrolled transactions of outside parties.
Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax – ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM (SPECIAL BENCH) Whether Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act can be invoked only to disallow expenditure of the nature referred to therein which is shown as payable as on the date of the balance sheet or it can be invoked also to disallow such expenditure which become payable at any time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year. Held that section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked in respect of amounts actually paid within the previous year without deduction of TDS. Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts outstanding as of 31st March of every year (Majority view). Section 40(a)(ia) would apply only to amounts outstanding as of 31st March of every year on which TDS not deducted and not to amounts paid during previous year without deduction of TDS for following reasons:
The term ‘computer programme’ had not been defined under Section 10B of the Act, however, it had been defined under Section 10BB of the Act as ‘computer programme’ or ‘process’ or ‘management of electronic data’. After the amendment with effect from 1 April 2001, the definition of computer software had been given in the Explanation 2 to Section 10B of the Act which includes any customised electronic data or any product or services of similar nature as notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which is transmitted or exported from India to any place outside by any means. Therefore, the human resource service in the field of development of software programme as notified falls under the definition of computer programme as stipulated in the Explanation as well as the definition under Section 10BB of the Act.
ITAT held that the proportionate discount on deep discount debentures issued for construction of house property is in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, such interest would be allowable as deduction under the provisions of Section 24(b) of the Act while computing income from house property. The Tribunal relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Madras Industrial Finance Corpn Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC) observed that the difference between the issue price and maturity value has to be spread over the debenture holding period. Accordingly, proportionate deduction should be allowed in computing income from house property.
Tribunal held that use of the expression ’may be taxed’ in the second sentence of Article 7 on business profits would permit both the state, in which the permanent establishment (PE) is situated (Source State or PE State), as well as the Residence State of the enterprise, the right to tax the business profits attributable to the PE.
