M/s. Perfetti India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Considering all the aspects and principle of consistency propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Swami Satsand vs. ITO reported in 193 ITR 321, we are of the opinion that loss suffered by the assessee on account of exchange rate fluctuation is allowable expenditure in this year also. The assessee may not be able to produce evidence of the utilisation of the capital before the AO but from the orders of the AO in earlier years and in subsequent years impliedly, it is ascertainable that it is used for the working capital which is in a revenue account.
ITAT Mumbai has in the case of ITO v. Mahavirchand Mehta [2011] 11 taxmann.com 194 (Mum) held that the expression ‘liable to tax’ as used in Article 4(l) of India-UAE tax treaty (the tax treaty) does not mean that the person should actually be liable to tax in that contracting state by virtue of an existing legal provision. It will also cover cases where the other contracting state has the right to tax such person, whether or not such a right is exercised.
Shramjivi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of KEC Interntional Ltd v/s. B.R. Balakrishnan (Supra) has been pleased to hold that generally coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the Statute to go in appeal. In the present case, it remained the allegation of the appellant that recovery action was taken by the A.O by attaching bank account of the appellant u/s. 226(3) on 29.3.2010 on the basis of first appellate order passed on 3rd Februry 2010 and was served upon the assessee on 31st March 2010.
ITO vs. Laxmi Jewel Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before appellate Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monitory limit of 3,00,000/-. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (supra) held that the circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the court either for admission or for final disposal.
The only issue in this appeal of the revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of employees’ contribution to ESI & PF by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. For this revenue has raised the following two grounds:
Laxmi Civil Engineering Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) – After Section 80 IA was amended by the Finance Act, 2001, the section applies to an enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing; or (ii) operating and maintaining; or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfills certain conditions. Those conditions are (1) ownership of the enterprises by a company registered in India or by a consortiums; (II) an agreement with the central or State Government, local authority or statutory body; and (iii) The Start of operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995. The requirement that operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995 has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision under which deduction is available to an assessee who develops or operates and maintains, or develops, operates and maintains an infrastructure facility.
ITO V. M/s Elka Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd. ( ITAT Delhi) – The issue is whether the promotional expenses incurred by a company engaged in business of cosmetics on ‘Testers’, and ‘merchant display’ which were supplied free of cost to the retailers are capital in nature merely because it also promotes goodwill of the company. It was held that nature of expenditure incurred in the assessee’s line of business is absolutely essential for the day to day conduct of the business of the assessee-company and the same is allowable as revenue expenditure.
In a recent ruling, in the case of LG Asian Plus Ltd. Vs. Asst. Director of Income-tax the Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that income earned by a Foreign Institutional Investor from derivative trading would be taxable as `capital gains’ in view of special provisions under section 115AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also held that under the Act, income could be treated as ‘speculative’ only if it was taxable as ‘business income’. The Tribunal accordingly ruled that FII income would not be treated as ‘speculative business income’. While ruling in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal held that loss incurred from derivative transactions would not be treated as ‘speculation loss’ but would be treated as capital loss, and hence, it could be adjusted against capital gains earned by the assessee.
A relation between the business of a non-resident and activity carried on in India would result in a ‘business connection’ for the purpose of deemed accrual of income in India as well as for considering the resident as the agent of the non-resident
The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Tianjin Tianshi India Private Limited v. ITO, held that existence of actual cross border transaction and motive to shift profits outside India or evade taxes in India are not necessary pre conditions for Transfer Pricing (TP) provisions to apply.
