In thie case ITAT held that the non-compete fees was in the nature of capital expenditure and entitled for depreciation as intangible asset under Section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. ITAT followed the in view of the Chennai Tribunal’s decision in the case of Real Image Tech. Export turnover of Export Oriented Unit can be included in export turnover of business while determining deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Hridey Vikram (ITAT Delhi)- CBDT, vide above instruction has clearly laid down that the revenue should not prefer appeals against assessees before ITAT if the tax effect involved in the appeal, excluding interest, is less than Rs. 3 lacs. The tax payable in the present appeal being below Rs. 3 lacs, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable in view of CBDT Instruction.
Baker Technical Services Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – As per order of the Ld. CIT (A) the appeal was posted for hearing on 8.02.2010. On the said date, the assessee sought the adjournment. Again the appeal was fixed on 20th February 2010. But it appears that there was no response from the assessee. Nowhere, it is mentioned by the Ld. CIT (A) that notice was duly served on the assessee fixing the date of hearing. Otherwise also, no prejudice should have been caused to the Ld. CIT (A) if one opportunity would have been given. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT (A) has disposed off the appeal in undue haste. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore the entire matter to his file for fresh adjudication as per law after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
ACIT (E) Vs. India ITME Society (ITAT Mumbai) Since the assessee has not maintained separate books of account for these activities of providing other services and charging with a margin, the notification issued u/s 10(23C)(iv) will not applicable in respect of such income from other activities and therefore, the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) is not available in respect of the income earned by the assessee from the activity of providing power installation, electricity, telephone facilities, compressed air hire etc. etc. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow exemption with respect to the receipt and accumulations from the holding and organizing the exhibition and hence, the income from other activities in providing other services by charging huge profit has to be taxed as income of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed.
This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from the order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 26/02/2009 passed for A.Y. 2003-04. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act of Rs. 16,50,000/- which was confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeals).
ACIT Vs. Symantec Software India P. Ltd. (ITAT Pune)- Based on the specific facts of the case, the Tribunal has reiterated that the fulfillment of the conditions of section 10A(2) is of utmost importance for claiming a deduction under section 10A. A reference to the new undertaking as expansion by the STPI would not dis-entitle the assessee from claiming a deduction under section 10A of the Act.
ADIT (IT) Vs. Warner Brother Pictures Inc (ITAT Mumbai)- even if income arises to the Non-Resident due to the business connection in India, the income accruing or arising out of such business connection can only be taxed to the extent of the activities attributed to permanent establishment. In this case, the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India. Since the Indian company who obtained the rights is acting independently, Agency PE provisions are not applicable to the assessee company.
DCIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Camelot was a 100% subsidiary of the appellant and the appellant had deep business interest in Camelot. The main reason for setting up Camelot was to manufacture toothbrushes exclusively for the appellant. The appellant was relying upon Camelot for manufacturing of toothbrushes to be traded by the appellant. The entire investment in Camelot was made by the appellant only as a measure of commercial expediency to further its business objectives and were primarily related to the business operations of the appellant. At no point of time, the investments in Camelot was made or held with an intention to realize any enhancement in value thereof over a period of time or to earn dividend income. Rather the investments were made only to separately house an integral part of the business activity of the appellant, which essentially operated as a single unified business.
ACIT Vs. SKF Bearings India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – Sections 54EC and 74 refer to capital gain arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset and not with respect to a short term capital asset. Further, section 112(1 )(b)(i) and (ii) specifically refers to only long term capital gains. Hence, where section 50 by a legal fiction, deems the income earned from a depreciable asset as short term capital gain, applying the tax rate specified for long term capital gains in section 112(1) would not arise. On a plain reading of section 50, the excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of a short term capital asset. The beneficial rate of tax @ 20% would not be applicable to capital gains arising on transfer of depreciable asset even though the asset was held for more than thirty-six months
Dive into the case of Demag Cranes & Components vs. DCIT, exploring provisions of 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules and TP adjustments.
