The principles regarding taxability of income from offshore supplies under a turnkey contract undertaken by a foreign company in India have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. The above decision of the Delh
While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was noted by the Tribunal that nothing had been brought on record, by the Assessing Officer, to suggest that the expenditure was not incurred for the business purpose of the assessee. In the opinion of the Tribunal, if somebody, other than the assessee, benefited from the expenditure incurred by it, that woul
In this writ petition there is a challenge to section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as it purports to levy service tax on the renting of immovable property to be used for commercial / business purposes. This provision has been recently amended by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1-6-2007.
On merits, s. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation in respect of know-how, patent, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. The term “commercial rights” are such rights which are obtained for effectively carrying on business and commerce. “Commerce” is a wide term which encompasses many a facet. Accordingly, any right obtained for carrying on business with effectiveness comes within the sweep of meaning of “intangible asset”. Goodwill, being the positive reputation built by a person over a period of time is of “similar nature” as the other items enumerated in the definition of “intangible assets.
Pursuant to the insertion of the concept of “block of assets” w.e.f. 1.04.1988, depreciation is allowable on the WDV of the “block of assets” and individual assets lose their identity upon introduction into the block. The department’s argument that user of each and every asset is essential is not acceptable because it would mean that the assessee has to maintain the details of each asset separately and this would frustrate the very purpose for which the amendment was brought about.
The profits from the offshore supply contract held to be not liable to tax in India on the ground that the transfer of title in the goods had passed outside India.
Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi HC) – On this issue, the Delhi High Court observed that the justification of an order passed by the Tribunal recalling its own order is required to be tested on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466, dealing with the Tribunal’s power under section 254(2) to recall its order where prejudice has resulted to a party due to an apparent omission, mistake or error committed by the Tribunal while passing the order. Such recalling of order for correcting an apparent mistake committed by the Tribunal has nothing to do with the doctrine or concept of inherent power of review. It is a well settled provision of law that the Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own judgment or order on merits or reappreciate the correctness of its earlier decision on merits. However, the power to recall has to be distinguished from the power to review. While the Tribunal does not have the inherent power to review its order on merits, it can recall its order for the purpose of correcting a mistake apparent from the record.
Unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C :- Sec. 69C refers to the source of the expenditure and not to the expenditure itself; further, in the absence of any material found during the search, addition of expenditure would not be justified in the block assessment.
Recently, the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal remitted back the matter to the Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) for reassessment since the directions of the DRP were found to be very laconic and non-speaking. The Tribunal, while setting aside such directions commented that the DRP has not considered the voluminous submissions of the taxpayer.
A search was conducted on 18.01.2001 and it was said to have been completed in March 2001. The notice under Section 158BC of the said Act was served on the assessee on 03.12.2001 and the assessee filed the return on 31.12.2002. According to the learned counsel for the assessee / appellant, the notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act read with the provisions of Section 158BC(b) could have been issued by 31.12.2003, i.e., within the period of twelve months fro
