Bayer Material Science Private Limited v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The non segregation of the trading and indenting activity, inadequacy noticed by the Tribunal of the split-up between the said activities, non furnishing of comparable data by the assessee to validate the application of TNMM to indenting activities, ultimately led the Tribunal in the absence of valid comparable data, to allow the use of comparables controlled transactions for the purposes of benchmarking.
Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd., Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the present case, the New India Insurance Co. or other Insurance Company in India, who avails the services of the assessee as a broker in the process of the re-insurance of the risk is left with no technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes so as to bring the services rendered by the assessee within the ambit of Article 13(4)(c) of the Treaty.
ITO Vs Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) – After hearing both the parties, we find that the issue is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of Mumbai “C” Bench of the Tribunal in ITA no.5538/Mum./2009, for assessment year 2006- 07, in ACIT v/s M/s. Omniscient Securities P. Ltd., order dated 16thMarch 2011, wherein the Tribunal, vide Para-10, dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue, which reads as follows:-
Manishkumar & Co. Vs. ITO( ITAT Ahmedabad)- The first ground relates to addition of Rs.13,77,000/- made u/s 68 by the AO. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked by the AO to prove the identity of the lender, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the lender in respect of the loan of Rs.13,77,000/- shown in the name of Shri Madanlal J. Panjabi. The assessee was only able to furnish the death certificate of Madanlal J. Panjabi. No other evidence including that from the legal heir of Mr. Panjabi was submitted The AO therefore, made the addition of Rs.13,77,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Before ld. CIT(A) also no details could be submitted by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the action of the AO. Further aggrieved, now the assessee is in appeal before us.
ITAT held that the payment received for supplying the ‘Repair Technical Documents’ are treated as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) under the Income-tax Act,1961 (the Act). The Tribunal further observed that the technical materials supplied by the taxpayer would not lose the characteristics of ‘Service’, simply because they were supplied in the form of bound manuals, more particularly when it is tailor made for the specific requirements of a person.
It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal is a fact finding authority and should have adjudicated the matter on merits. We are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue is not at all substantial and the amount in dispute is quite insignificant, considering that the case is one of a block assessment. There is no justification for the Income Tax Department to go on burdening the Tribunal, the Court with every case right up to the end. Apart from burdening the Tribunal and Courts, it also causes avoidable expenses to the Assessee. It is common knowledge that the Assessee has to pay for legal fees and merely because the Income Tax Department has got unlimited resources, there is no justification that every case should be dragged on. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain the appeal because of the insignificant amount involved in the matter. No substantial question of law arises. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Held by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Manish Bhambri
Sanjay Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In the instant case, surrender made by the assessee during the remand proceedings, when the assessee was confronted with the statement of Shri Sanjay Rastogi recorded on oath on 27.9.2005, has never been retracted either during the reassessment proceedings or during the penalty proceedings at any stage. The assessee has not even attempted to establish its bona fide nor submitted any explanation before the AO during the penalty proceedings. Thus, in the light of view taken in the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) rightly upheld the levy of penalty.
Shri Suresh Kumar D. Shah v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- It is held that in a Joint Development Agreement if the Developer has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then the transaction would qualify as a ‘transfer’ under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The fundamental feature which determines the taxability of capital gains is that the gain ought to be from the transfer of a capital asset. This section has a larger scope of operation as it states that the gain shall be deemed income of that previous year in which the transfer takes place. Accordingly, given the deeming provision, the income on account of capital gain should be charged to tax in the same previous year in which the transfer was effected or deemed to have taken place. The doctrine of ‘part performance’ is undoubtedly based upon the doctrine of equity. If one party has performed his part of duty then equity demands that the other party shall also perform his part of the obligation. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires the existence of following conditions:
Chattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. ITO (TDS) – in a situation in which the payment in made for the use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, the payment could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, in a situation in which the payment is made only for the purpose a specific act, i.e. power transmission in this case, and even if an asset is used in the said process, the payment cannot be said to be for the use of an asset. When control of the asset (transmission lines in the present case) always remains with the PGCIL, any payment made to the PGCIL for transmission of power on the transmission lines and infrastructure owned controlled and in physical possession of PGCIL can be said to have been made for ‘the use of’ these transmission lines or other related infrastructure.
Bhagwan Dass Bansal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
