The ITAT held that for the computation of MAT, profits disclosed as per the audited accounts should be adopted, provided the accounts are prepared in the prescribed format. If the accounts are not so prepared, the Tax Authority may substitute the amount declared as per the Profit and Loss Account (P&L) with the appropriate amount, regardless of the fact that the accounts are certified as complying with the prescribed format by auditors.
In a recent ruling Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Growth Avenue Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) v DCIT [ITA No. 3912/Del/2005] on the issue of inclusion of capital gains in book profits while computing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under the provisions of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), where such capital gains are not chargeable to tax under the normal provisions of the ITL. The ITAT held that any adjustments outside the scope of the MAT computation mechanism, under the ITL, is not permissible and since the exclusion of capital gains is not specifically provided therein, a taxpayer is not entitled to such an adjustment while computing book profits for the purpose of MAT.
For the purpose of Expenditure Tax Act, 1987 the convention center managed by a hotel is an extension of the hotel itself and therefore, rent collection from the convention center shall be eligible for the levy of expenditure tax.
Tribunal has got the power of rectifying a mistake which is apparent from the record itself and even an error of judgment is outside the ambit of section 254(2) of the Act. The oft-quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in CIT v. Ramesh Chand Modi [2001] 249 ITR 323[2] distinguishing the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramesh Electric & Traaing Co. (supra) needs to be examined.
We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the amount of liability in question in respect of TISCO written back by the assessee company in its accounts was treated by the authorities below as its income by applying the provisions of section 41(1). There is no dispute that the such liability represented the trading liability of the assessee and as declared by the assessee itself in the return of income, there was remission or recession of the said liability during the year under consideration. The said liability accordingly was writ
The Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Sabre Inc. v. DCIT (2009-TIOL- 488-ITAT-DEL) ruled on the taxability of the income earned through Computer Reservation System (CRS) in India. The Tribunal after following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT [2009] 180 Taxman 357 (Del) held that since the income attributable to the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India was less than the remuneration paid to the distributor in India by the taxpayer no income was taxable in hands of Sabre Inc.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of DDIT v. M/s Saraswati Holding Corpn. Inc. (2009-TIOL-529-ITAT-DEL) ruled on the taxability of the income from the sale of shares in the hands of resident in Mauritius. The Tribunal held that the taxpayer holding tax residence certificate of Mauritius, was entitled to the exemption provided under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius tax treaty (the tax treaty). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 236 ITR 706 (SC).
Recently, the Special Bench of the Kolkata Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2009-TIOL-542-ITAT-KOL-SB) while dealing with a case prior to the amendment to section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) exempting derivative transaction as speculative in nature, held that the derivative transactions will be considered as speculative transaction under section 43(5) of the Act. Further, it was also held that the above referred amendment to section 43(5) of the Act is perspective in nature and comes into effect from Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.
The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in recent case of Associated Electronic & Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2009-TIOL-263- ITAT-BANG) held that transfer of trade mark is not transfer of goodwill as the goodwill of a business cannot be sold without selling business itself. Thus, the trade mark and goodwill are two different assets. Further, since the capital gains on sale of trade mark came into effect from 1 April 2002 there was no capital gain on sale of trade mark for the year under consideration.
The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that in this case interest from deposit was offered as business income and was also assessed as business income and therefore, automatically once it is assessed as business income then the same becomes eligible for deduction u/s.10B.
