Sami Labs Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) – Assessee had to incur cultivation expenses to ensure adequate and steady supply of coleus plants from the farmers which were an essential input for the continuous processing in research and development activities of the assessee. Thus, these expenses incurred by the assessee for a commercial expediency and were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. In essence, the authorities were not justified in disallowing the cultivation expenses of Rs.90.64 lakhs claimed by the assessee.
When parties enter into two separate contracts, one for material and one for labour, the transaction would not be one and indivisible, but would fall into two separate agreements, one of work or service and the other of sale. In such a case, the provisions of section 194C would apply only to the labour contract and not to the materials contract. The supply portion of the contract being for supply of equipment does not require deduction of tax at source. -Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Filtrex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT – ITAT Bangalore held that payments made under a Technology Transfer Agreement ‘make available’ technical knowledge or experience, and hence, are taxable as Fees for Technical Services in terms of Article 12(4)(b) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. Also, payments made for services in the nature of marketing support and other administrative services do not ‘make available’ technology, and hence, cannot be held as FTS under Article 12 of DTAA between India and Singapore.
The OECD guidelines are not of binding nature and even the Proviso to Rule 10B (4) provides that any subsequent year data cannot be considered. The contemporaneous data of relevant financial year is to be used for making the comparable analysis for arriving at the ALP unless it is proved otherwise
It was held that if technical services provided off-shore do not require any deduction of tax at source. In the . instant case, the services have been rendered off-shore though these are utilized in India and as per the; decision of the jurisdictional High Court, no TD5 was required to be made. It is true that through e-commerce, the services can be rendered in India without any geographical boundary but no facts have been put before us to establish that Sun Singapore provided such services in India When the income of the recipients not taxable in India then the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source. Hence, it is held that the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the IT Act.
The above decision presupposes that salary would be taxable if the accrual of income is in India. However, in India, salary income has been taxed either if it accrued or was received in India. Being a Tribunal decision, this it would be binding in the jurisdictional location though it is to be seen whether the principles laid therein will be endorsed by the courts to have a wider impact.
Whether salary credited to a bank account in India for services rendered there by a non-resident was taxable in India?
The assessee is a foreign company, having a branch office as well as a subsidiary in India. The assessee decided to close down its branch office and transfer all its assets and liabilities as a going concern to its subsidiary. The assessee adopted C
By considering the potential loss on the long standing receivables as a genuine adjustment in the course of assessment, the Tribunal has reinforced the principles that the concept of TP cannot be that of an exact science and that constant application
Exemption under section 10B-Availability-Return not filed by due date-Proviso to section 10B(1) which provides that no exemption under section 10B shall be allowed if return is not furnished by due date prescribed under section 139(1) is directory and not mandatory in nature. Therefore, in genuine cases exemption under section 10B may be allowed even if the return is not filed by the due date mentioned in section 139(1)
