Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation)- It is held that the turnkey contract is not divisible and therefore, the offshore supply and offshore services can be attributed to the Indian permanent establishment; as the project office was opened for coordination and execution of project, the same is held to be a fixed place PE.
Havells India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- It has been held that where services have been rendered outside India and have been utilised for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source outside India, such payments would fall outside the purview of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and will not be deemed to accrue or arise in India.
ITO Vs Omni Globe information Technologies India (P) Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Business is set up when it reaches a stage where it is in a position to procure business and not before. However, the expenditure becomes deductible from such stage, irrespective of the date of actual receipt of the business. The assessee-company had been incorporated on 19 March 2004 for carrying out the business of the BPO. It incurred the expenditure of Rs 59,24,809 under various heads in the months of April and May, 2004. Although the staff had been recruited, it was not ready to render services as the staff had to be trained with the systems.
Wrigley India Private Ltd. v ACIT (ITAT Delhi)- Whether the Tax Officer has, inter alia, erred in disallowing the claim of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the Taxpayer post amalgamation? The Tribunal agreed with the position taken by the Taxpayer by holding that: – The conditions specified in Section 72A(2) of the IT Act are applicable only when amalgamating company has brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. However, in the Taxpayer‟s case, the amalgamating company does not have brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation and hence, the provisions do not apply
ACIT Vs. Oxford Softeck Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- If it is supposed that all the conditions are fulfilled but then also the same cannot be added as income in the hands of the payer company as such amount can be added only to the income of a person as dividend who is a shareholder to whom such loan and advances made. Keeping in view these facts and the aforementioned case law relied upon by ld. CIT(A) and also the provisions of the Act, we are of the opinion that addition in the hands of the assessee company has rightly been deleted by ld. CIT(A) and to that extent we uphold his order and it is held that addition has rightly been deleted in the hands of the assessee company.
Society For The Small & Medium Exporters Vs DIT (ITAT Delhi)- In a case where the objects of the society may be charitable, but, in the absence of carrying on those activities despite the fact that the activities which were carried on were for the purpose of generating income, the society is not entitled for registration for that year. Therefore, it is held that for assessment year 2008-09 and for subsequent years in which the assessee does not carry out charitable activity, the assessee has been rightly refused to get benefit of registration as charitable institution. The only activity which has been carried out is for the purpose of generating income, which is not a charitable activity in itself. Therefore, it is held that learned DIT (E) has rightly refused to grant registration to the assessee and his order is upheld.
ITO V/s. Tropicana Beverages Company (ITAT Delhi)- When it is established that the machinery on which depreciation has been claimed by the assessee, had been provided by the assessee to Dynamix for the purpose of manufacturing the product of the assessee, necessarily the machinery was used for the purpose of the business of the assessee. That being so, ‘used for the purposes of the business’ in section 32 of the Act is applicable to the assessee.
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In our considered opinion, the stand taken by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income was a possible and plausible view and therefore, the penalty is not justified. The judgement of Honourable Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 158 also supports the case of the assessee because in that case, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that mere making of a claim by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless it is found that any details supplied by the assessee in this return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. In our considered opinion, this judgement of Honourable Apex Court supports the case of the assessee in the present case and respectfully following this judgement, we delete the penalty.
M.L. Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- The notification issued by the CBDT at Serial No. 8, mentions “human resource services” as a notified service eligible for deduction u/s 10A. It was also observed that the Assessee is just processing the potentiality of candidates employable by any software development company and the customised data is prepared for the US Company.
ACIT, New Delhi Vs Indian Farmer Fertilisers Co- op Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)- From the tax audit report, we also find that amount of Rs. 13,03,74,047/- has been shown as paid on or before due date for furnishing return of income for the previous year u/s 139(1) of the Act. Form 3CD has been prepared and signed by Rajnish & Associates, CA.
