As per clause (a) of Rule 49, an ‘authorized income-tax practitioner’ is any authorized representative as defined in clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of section 288 for appearing before this Tribunal.
In the present case, we are of the opinion that even if the websites had materialized, the expenditure could not have been viewed as capital expenditure because the website is put up for the purposes of day-to-day running of the business and even if one were to view that some enduring benefit is obtained by the assessee, the benefit cannot be said to accrue to the assessee in the capital field. A website is something where full information about the assessee’s business is given and it helps the assessee’s customers in dealing with it. A website constantly needs updating, otherwise it may become obsolete. It helps in the smooth and efficient running of the day-to-day business. The expenditure would have been allowable as revenue expenditure; as a corollary, when the website did not materialize, the amounts advanced to the companies who were engaged to develop the websites, when they became irrecoverable, can be written off and claimed as loss incidental to the business. The loss is thus allowable as business loss in terms of section 28 of the Act. We accordingly uphold the assessee’s alternative plea.
Section 91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows credit for Federal & State taxes, the DTAA allows credit only for Federal taxes. The result is that the Section 91 is more beneficial to the assessee & by virtue of Section 90(2) it must prevail over the DTAA. Though Section 91 applies only to a case where there is no DTAA, a literal interpretation will result in a situation where an assessee will be worse off as a result of the provisions of the DTAA which is not permissible under the Act. Section 91 must consequently be treated as general in application and must prevail where the DTAA is not more beneficial to the assessee. Accordingly, even an assessee covered by the scope of the DTAA will be eligible for credit of State taxes u/s 91 despite the DTAA not providing for the same.
Rajeev Sureshbhai Gajwani Vs. ACIT – Article 26(2) means that taxation of a PE of a USA resident shall not be less favorable than the taxation of a resident enterprise carrying on the same activities. The result is that the exemptions and deductions available to Indian enterprises would also be granted to the US enterprises if they are carrying on the same activities. As the assessee was carrying on the “same activities” of export of software as done by residents, it was entitled to s. 80HHE deduction as admissible to a resident assessee.
Explore the legal battle: Purvez A. Poonawalla’s settlement with R.K.Bavasa, challenging the will of late Mrs. Mani Cawasa Bamji. Tax implications discussed.
The AO relied on the specific principle mentioned in the circular. However, the circular has no binding force on the income-tax authorities and needs to be used only as guidance. While applying the principles of the circular, the facts need to be considered in each of the case. It is well-settled principle that whether the activity of buying and selling of the shares is in the nature of trade and investment is a mixed question of law and fact. In this case, on perusal of the details of share transactions filed with the return of income, the Tribunal observed that, the taxpayer has treated the entire investment in the shares as an investment only and not as a stock-in-trade.
Non-referred international transactions fall outside the TPO’s jurisdiction . The Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of M/s. Amadeus India Pvt Ltd v. ACIT, Range-I, New Delhi (ITA No. 5203/Del/2010) held that the role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is limited to the determination of arm’s length price in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer (AO). The TPO, suo motto, cannot take cognizance of any other international transaction not referred to him by the TPO.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“The Tribunal”), Delhi Bench recently pronounced its ruling in the case of M/s Aricent Technologies (Holding) Limited v. DCIT (Appeal no. ITA No. 4699 /Del. /2010) for AY 2006-07, on the amount paid as incentive to employees of the Taxpayer by its parent company pursuant to transaction of takeover for the employees’ retention. The Tribunal held in favor of the Taxpayer observing that transaction does not have any element of income for the purpose of making an adjustment to the price of the said international transaction and is merely in the nature of reimbursement of incentive paid by Taxpayer to its employees.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) recently pronounced its ruling in the case of Birlasoft (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ITA NO. 3839/DEL/2010, where the Taxpayer had determined the arm’s length price of their international transactions on the basis of internal benchmarking analysis. The Tribunal upheld the transfer pricing method followed by the Taxpayer whereby the net cost plus margin earned from rendering software development and related services (“software services”) to associated enterprises (AEs) were compared with the operating profit margin earned from rendering software services to unrelated parties.
Mumbai ITAT has held in an important case namely Kumarpal Amrutlal Doshi vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) that relief u/s 54EC shall be available even if the bonds are issued after the requisite period of 6 months for investment, if the cheque is issued within the period of 6 months but cheque is encashed after the requisite period and bonds are also issued after the requisite period of 6 months.
