The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has ruled on the transfer pricing aspects of management services fees paid by the Taxpayer to its regional headquarter company (associated enterprise or AE). The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) that the Taxpayer has not proved the commensurate benefits received for the service fees paid to the AE and, hence, ruled that the payment of the management services was not justified under arm’s length principles.
:Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of Bosch Ltd. v. CIT [2009-TIOL-736-ITAT-BANG]held that the taxpayer company was entitled to claim depreciation on the skill and the know-how brought by the employees of the transferee company classified as ‘business information’ under the category of ‘other identifiable intangibles’ (goodwill) under section 32(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Bangalore bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in the case of ACIT v. K. Mohan & Co.(Exports) (P.) Ltd [2010] 130 TTJ 719 (Bang) held that that profits earned from forward contracts cannot be included in the profits of the business of the undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act) .
In the event the assessee claims that he has not purchased the property, as revealed in the AIR, before the ld.AO, then, it would be proper for the ld.AO to obtain the Sale Deed from the Sub Registrar’s office to prove the revenue’s claim. Assessment order based only on the AIR report will not stand in the eye of law.
Where an undertaking existed in the same place, form and substance and did carry on the same business before and after the change in legal character of the form of organization, the taxpayer is eligible for deduction.
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Under section 9(1)(vi)-Income from supply of software to clients in India-Where assessee was engaged in sale of copyright software then income from such sale cannot be treated as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) particularly where assessee did not have any PE in India.
In our considered view, the AO was within his realm to invoke the provisions of s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the premise that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source while making the interest payments. The assessee’s stand that the payees have approached the AOs concerned for issuance of No TDS/lower TDS etc., authorization which they have failed to obtain etc., doesn’t hold water. Further contention of the assessee that TDS obligation was not was required, considering the computation of income shown in each case where F No.13 application was made to the AO concerned for authorization, in our considered view, to put it gently, the assessee had over-stepped in his perception which he was not obliged to do so under any provisions of I.T.Act.
We have heard both the parties. A forward contract is an agreement between a buyer and a seller obligating the seller to deliver a specified asset of specified quality and quantity to the buyer on a specified date at a specified place and the buyer in turn Is obligated to pay the seller a pre-negotiated price in exchange of the delivery. In the Instant case, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. In respect of export of readymade ga
In CIT vs. Samsung Electronics 227 CTR 335 the Karnataka High Court has confined its decision to the issue of responsibility of the assessee u/s 195 in deducting tax at source before making remittances to non-residents. Even though the court held in favour of the Revenue on the application of the TDS provisions, the court made it clear in paragraph 78 that it has not examined the question of tax liability of the non-resident assessees in respect of the payments received from assesses in India.
Explore the International Taxation dispute of Dylan George Smith vs ITAT Bangalore. Analysis of salary income taxation on accrual basis. Legal insights.
