The payment for use of services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source.
Income tax – DTAA – Assessee is incorporated in Netherlands – engaged in airlines business of carrying passengers as well as cargo – gets licence from Airport Authority of India for cargo space – enters into a contract with a company to take care of cargo-booking and handling service on commission basis – While making payments to the outsourced company the assessee adjusts the rent payable to AAI – AO treats the rent deducted from the payments made to the outsourced company as income taxable to tax in India – Tribunal finds it inextricably linked to the cargo handling business for which licence was issued and such rent adjustment cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources – Tribunal has correctly understood the law – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.-This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 29-3-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘said Act’)
The deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lacs, which had been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the said Act. The second issue pertains to the deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292/- by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained security deposits under Section 68 of the said Act.
CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court) – Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability.
The agreement for sale dated 24.06.1977 was substituted by the collaboration agreement dated 06.10.1981 and the agreement to sell dated 06.10.1981. There was no interest, much less, any right transferred in the property in favour of SSPL by the assessees and hence, as observed above, there was no transfer of a right in property as contemplated under Section 2 (47) of the Act.
the Tribunal was right in rejecting the revenue’s application for raising the additional ground as that would have amounted to introduction of a new source of income. The decision in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra) also does not come to the aid of the revenue in this case. A new ground can be permitted in appeal so long as the relevant facts are on record and the ground sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. As noted in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra), the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. A new ground may be allowed to be raised only when it arises from the facts which are on record. (Para 18)
H and R Johnson (India) Limited,Versus Union of India – Under the given circumstances of the case and particularly the purport of Rule 22 (2) of the Anti-Dumping Rules and the proviso thereto, the initiation of a new shipper review cannot be with retrospective effect in the case of a first time exporter.
CIT v. Marubeni India (P.) Ltd. In case where the present employer did not include salary paid by the previous employer u/s 192(2), because previous employer did not provide the details of disbursement, issue arose whether such present employer is liable for penal interest. It was held by HC that the liability of the present employer is limited only to the extent of details furnished by the employee with reference to his previous employment. In other words the present employer’s obligation of TDS will be restricted to the disbursements made by himself and also on the income earned in a previous employment if such details are furnished to him by the employee.
There is no doubt that the non-compete agreement incorporates a restrictive covenant on the right of the Assessee to carry on his activity of development of software. It may not alter the structure of his activity, in the sense that he could carry on the same activity in an organization in which he had a small stake, but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent it is a loss of a source of income for him and it is of an enduring nature, as contrasted with a transitory or ephemeral loss.
