This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of JCIT v State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-712- ITAT-MUM]. The ITAT held that the Taxpayer, a company incorporated in Mauritius, having established a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is entitled to the deduction of expenses, incurred for the purpose of the business of the PE, in computing the profits of the PE under Article 7(3) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty). In view of the specific provisions of the Tax Treaty allowing the deduction for such expenses, such a deduction is not subject to restrictions prescribed under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Panatone Finvest Ltd.(Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-717-ITAT-MUM]. The Taxpayer incurred interest expenditure on the funds borrowed for investing in shares of a company, with a view to acquire controlling interest. The ITAT held that the interest expenditure incurred is not allowable under Section 57(iii) (Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), since it is not incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of earning dividend income.
A plain reading of language used in the definition of `loan or deposit’ in section 269T clearly provides loan or deposit means any loan or deposit of any nature. Thus, there is no question of excluding current loan for the purpose of section 269T of the Act.
. In this case, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.06.1999 declaring total income at Rs. 15,77,534/-, wherein the arrears of rent was included while computing the income under the head “income from house property”. The A.O. processed the return of income u/s 143(1) at a returned total income of Rs. 15,77,534/-.
Section 271(1)(c) provides that if the AO or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner, in the course of proceedings in this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by a reason of the concealment of particulars of his income.
The use of word developing’ in juxtaposition to infrastructure facility in section 80-1A(4) indicates that what is eligible for deduction under this sub-section is the profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure facility and not something de hors it; so in order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a particular part of it; it may be possible that some part of development work is assigned by the developer to some contractor for doing it on his behalf; that will not put the doer of such work into the shoes of a developer; therefore, a mere contractor cannot be conferred with the benefit as provided in section 80-IA.
The penalty proceedings and the assessment proceedings both are different. Explanation 1to section 271(1)(c) in respect of any fact relating to the computation of total income states that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of an assessee shall be deemed to be the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. This deeming provision for concealment is not absolute one.
In our considered opinion, no prudent businessman would borrow funds on interest and keep his own funds idle. Besides, (he transaction of loan is also not third party transaction but the funds borrowed from the Indian Overseas Bank by the sister concern have been taken as loan by the assessee without any business necessity because its own funds have remained idle throughout the year. The assessee has also admitted that the funds were kept idle and not utilized during the course of the accounting period. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT (A), which is confirmed.
In the case before us, the Agreement between the assessee and DCIL/Distacorn and Modicorp is to assist the assessee by providing services in the manner setout in Schedule – 1 to the Agreement, [n the Agreement, it has been clearly provided that DCIL and Distacom have technical and operational
An order under section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant nominated in this behalf by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner and to furnish a report of such audit, does entail civil consequences. The special audit under section 142(2A) is not limited to the mere production of the books and vouchers before the auditor and verification thereof:
