This is an appeal filed by the assessee and its directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore, dated 30-11-2009 for the assessment year 2 008-09. The assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(A) in considering the assessee as assessee is default u/s 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act on the payments made by it to ING Zurich for purchase of shrink wrapped software from outside India. The AO considered the said payment as royalty under the Act as well as the DTAA between India and Switzerland.
All the com parables have to be compared on similar standards and the assessee cannot be put in a dis-advantageous position, when in the case of other companies adjustments for under utilisation of manpower is given. The assessee should also be given adjustment for under utilisation of its infrastructure. The AO shall consider this fact also while determining the ALP and make the TP adjustments.
Acer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) – Provision for warranty stood crystallised as soon as the sale was made which a customer would like to be fulfilled within the warranty period and is at the cost of an assessee ‘Goodwill Therefore, the residual amount purported to have been held by the AO as an excess provision cannot be considered as a contingent provision and not an ascertained liability.
anyo LSI Technology India Private Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Gain from fluctuation of foreign exchange is directly related with the export activities and should be considered as income derived from export in the year in which the export took place for the purpose of deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Karntaka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Whether the expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance of residential quarters of the staff which were owned by the assessee company can be treated as a benefit given to the employees and is covered under clause (E) of subsection (2) of section 115WB relating to employees’ welfare – Whether the Board circular which provides that even the indirect expenditure which benefit employees’ welfare is covered under FBT is not applicable as the expenditure incurred by the assessee to upkeep its assets doesn’t mean even remotely that the benefits were provided to employees either directly or indirectly. – Assessee’s appeal allowed.
Bhoruka Engineering Inds. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- The whole transaction has been arranged in a sequential manner with M/s. Bhoruka Steel Ltd selling its landed property to BFSL for a nominal value of Rs. 3.75 crores ; BFSL never before doing any business other than financial services purchases the land for Rs. 3.75 crores ; immediately thereafter the assessee company and its entire group holding 98.73% of shares in BFSL selling the share holding to DLFCDL for a consideration of Rs. 89,28,36,500/- without attracting any levy of taxation.
IBM India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Considering the second objection of the AO, namely, that separate books of account have not been maintained for the STP Units, his observation was that the objection of the AO arose on the premise that part of the expenditure which could be related to the exempted income which is not allowable to the assessee by virtue of the provisions contained in section 14A of the Act which could be disguised and allowed to be set off against taxable income and, thus, the assessee would be benefited by paying reduced tax which could have been avoided.
DCIT v. Golflink Software Park P Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) – The taxpayer was not only letting out its building for rent, but also carried on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs have been provided. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision of CIT v. National Storage Pvt Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC).
E2 Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO- Learned CIT(A) has passed a very detailed order in the assessment year 2002-03 and rightly came to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. From the assessment order, we find that according to the AO, it is not a new undertaking for the purpose of exemption u/s 10A of the IT Act. Factually, it is also correct that the undertaking was already engaged in exporting software before it became a STP unit. The STP was notified in March, 1993 but not in Software Technology Park. In the year 2001, a company was formed by conversion of the firm and it started production in STP unit after getting approval.
DCIT Vs. Akshay Eminence Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) – The provisions of s. 80IB(10) of the Act have not subscribed that the assessee was required to begin the construction work after obtaining the approval from the local authorities and that before getting such approval if the assessee begins the construction work, such construction was not recognized. What really matter here is the date of approval of the plan, but, not the date on which it was communicated?
