J. K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. (Taxpayer) Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)- In computing the book profit for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee was entitled to deduction in terms of clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 115JB(2) of the Act the adjustment of debit balance in the Profit and Loss Account with share Premium Account and Revaluation Reserve made on September 30, 2000, which is required to be excluded from consideration and accordingly, AO is required to determine amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation for each of years without taking said adjustment into consideration and allow deduction in respect of lesser of two amounts.
Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – The Finance Act, 2010 has extended the time limit for depositing tax deducted at source by the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act from the earlier lesser time available for compliance.
DCIT Vs M.G.S. Hospitalities (ITAT Delhi)- Section 40A(2)(b) – When assessee firm pays hefty salary to the father of a partner, it attracts provisions of Sec 40A(2)(b) but dis allowance can be made without verifying the market value of services provided by the partner’s father.
Mamania Family Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Where scrap has direct nexus with the industrial operations thereby implying that to the extent scrap is in the nature of bye-product of industrial operations, the same would qualify for deduction under section 80IB, since it is not clear as to how the scrap was generated and therefore, in order to verify whether the scrap had direct nexus with the industrial operation or its was scrap of other nature, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for necessary verification.
The learned Judicial Member had confirmed the order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment proceedings both on the basis of invalidity of notice having been issued on the dead person and the service of notice on legal heir of assessee beyond the period of limitation, whereas the learned Accountant Member set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) holding the reassessment proceedings as valid having been initiated after issuing valid notice and its proper service. The Third Member vide his opinion dated 8-12-2010 concurred with the decision reached by learned Judicial Member on invalidity of notice having been issued on the dead person thereby rendering the reassessment proceedings as void and agreed with the learned Accountant Member on the validity of service of notice holding that the notice could be validly served beyond the time-limit prescribed under section 149 of the Income-tax Act.
Four Soft Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee given by Indian company to its subsidiary outside India would not fall within the definition of ‘international transaction’. In the absence of any charging provision, the lower authorities are not correct in bringing aforesaid transaction under the purview of transfer pricing. The Tribunal observed that corporate guarantee is very much incidental to the business of the taxpayer and hence, the same cannot be compared to a bank guarantee transaction of the Bank or financial institution.
Rain Commodities Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- Prejudicial to the interest of revenue appearing in section 263 is conjunction with the expression ‘erroneous’ and that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot prejudice to the interest of Revenue. In case, where the assessing officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law where two views are plausible the CIT cannot exercise his power u/s 263 to defer with the AO even if there has been a loss of revenue.
Dy. Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)- I Vs. Louis Berger International Inc. (ITAT Hyderabad)- Reimbursable expenses being received in connection with the rendering of consultancy services is not taxable as ‘fees for technical services’ in accordance with clause (vii) of sub-section (i) of Section 9 of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Part 4 of Article 12 of the DTAA with USA.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee and its directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore, dated 30-11-2009 for the assessment year 2 008-09. The assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(A) in considering the assessee as assessee is default u/s 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act on the payments made by it to ING Zurich for purchase of shrink wrapped software from outside India. The AO considered the said payment as royalty under the Act as well as the DTAA between India and Switzerland.
ABN Amro Securities India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- When anticipated profits on unmatured contracts are held, to be non-taxable, there is no good reason as to why anticipated losses on unmatured contracts can be taken into account while computing business income, we find that there is an inherent fallacy in this approach inasmuch as anticipated losses and anticipated profits are not treated in the same manner in the computation of business profits. These dual standards in recognising anticipated losses and anticipated profits are accepted accounting norms and in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (supra), Honourable Supreme Court has approved this duality in approach.
