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.
There is no dispute about the fact so far as M/s. SCML is concerned, it is a foreign company which is operating the Cruises in the international waters. The said company has entered into the agreement with the assessee company and as per the terms of the agreement,
It will also be relevant to mention that in the Memorandum explaining the provisions relating to direct taxes in the Finance Act, the above clause has been described under the head `Measures to plug revenue leakages’ and the relevant portion of Memorandum Explaining the Provisions Relating to Direct Taxes is reproduced below:-
Here we summarised the ruling of the Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-666-ITAT-BANG] in the case of Bovis Lend Lease (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the taxability of payments towards reimbursement of cost forservices provided by a group entity. The ITAT held that such payments
The assessee co-op housing society gave permission to a developer to construct 2 floors and 8 flats on the building belonging to the society by using the TDR / FSI available to the developer. In consideration, the developer paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the assessee and Rs. 66 lakhs to its members aggregating Rs. 92 lakhs. The AO took the view that the assessee had relinquished its right “to load TDR and construct additional floors” and as there was no cost of acquisition, the entire consideration of Rs. 26 L was assessable as long-term capital gains. On appeal, the CIT (A) took the view that even the amounts received by the Members were assessable in the assessee’s hands.
