Software used by the assessee cannot be considered independent, but, only as a part of the service rendered by the assessee to its clients with regard to the development of BSC. By means of the Balance Score Card system developed by the assessee, the clients were getting an advantage which went much beyond the period of agreement between the assessee and its clients.
ACIT Vs American Express Services India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- We find that it is not in dispute that the transaction between the assessee and American Express Bank, inter alia, including for purchase of Acquired Business Database were subjected to transfer pricing scrutiny and, the Transfer Pricing Officer vide order dated 15.2.2005 has accepted the transaction without making any adjustment to the arms length price. In this view of the matter and as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Oracle India Pvt Ltd (243 CTR 103), when the price fixed is acceptable as arms length price by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92 of the Act, it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to disturb that price so paid as unreasonable.
Intelsat Corporation Vs. ADIT (International Taxation)- We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We have already mentioned that there is a distinguishable feature namely that the assessee has received payments from persons residents in India. However, the receipts have been taxed u/s 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2, Clause (vi) thereunder. The decision in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Limited is to the contrary and in favour of the assessee. It is also a matter of fact on record that the assessee is a tax resident of USA and, therefore, the provisions contained in the DTAA are applicable.
DCIT Vs. M/s. Bellad & Co. (ITAT Bangalore) – The assessee is a partnership firm dealing in automobiles and Sony products and also into generation of electricity from windmills. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring income of Rs.11,52,410/- after setting off of depreciation loss pertaining to windmill installed during the financial year relevant to assessment year under appeal. The AO, in the assessment completed, disallowed loss of Rs. 1,22,30,626/-.
Kotak Securities Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – When we look at the connotations of expression ‘commission or brokerage’ in its cognate sense, as in the light of the principle of noscitur a sociis as we are obliged to, in our considered view, scope of expression ‘commission’, for this purpose, will be confined to ‘an allowance, recompense or reward made to agents, factors and brokers and others for effecting sales and carrying out business transactions’ and shall not extend to the payments, such as ‘bank guarantee commission’, which are in the nature of fees for services rendered or product offered by the recipient of such payments on principal to principal basis.
ACIT vs. DICGC Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) – Sec.201 deals with the mode of recovery of taxes and once tax due has already been paid then the same demand cannot be enforced again. However, sec.40[a][ia] deals with the disallowance of expenditure itself. Therefore, merely by invoking the Heydon’s principle the statutory provisions cannot be rendered redundant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once tax has not been deducted and even if such tax has been paid by the deductee, disallowance u/s.40[a][ia] can still be made.
ITO (TDS) Panchkula Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) it is apparent from the record that the assessee deducted TDS correctly and revised the PAN and filed revised statement in Form No. 26Q, hence there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 139A of the Act. Even otherwise the assessee did not derive any benefit whatsoever, by filing the wrong PANs and PAN was corrected after ascertaining the same from the respective deductees. In our view the assessee has proved that there was reasonable cause for alleged failure and hence no penalty is leviable
ITO Vs. JMD Global (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- Before the ld CIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that all the allottees were in Calcutta and as the notice u/s 133(6) were sent towards the fag end of the time barring period, the same could not be replied by those parties before the assessment order was passed.
Rajesh Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- It is found that there were discrepancies in the book result filed, traced on the scrutiny of the books made by the Assessing Officer which could not be properly replied/ explained. So, action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the book result and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A) in view of the facts and circumstances is found to be justified and proper which action is upheld.
M/s. Kenton Leisure Services, P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Cochin) – It was held that lease rental income arising from agreements for letting on lease hostel premises along with provision and maintenance of various facilities and amenities would be taxable under the head ‘Income from Business’ as against ‘Income from House Property’.The characterisation of lease rental income as ‘Income from Business’ comes as a relief to taxpayers who lease out property along with provision of facilities / amenities. However, this issue is fact specific and it would be important for taxpayers to bear the above principles in mind while determining the taxability of such revenue streams.
