The words ‘belonging to’ have to be read along with the Explanation of section 4 and under this Explanation the expression ‘transfer’ includes any agreement or arrangement. The assessee, in the instant case, was allotted the land by the State Government. It constructed sheds thereupon and rented out the same and derived income therefrom. The sheds were, therefore, under the domain and control of the assessee. Even if legal ownership had not passed to the assessee, the property in question belonged to it. The assessee was deriving rental income and collecting the same which itself showed that it was the assessee to whom the property belonged.
Whether the ITAT was right in law in holding that Freight Subsidy received from the Govt. by the assessee is allowed to be included as profits derived from the industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction under Section 80- 1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
In a case where the partnership deed does not specify the remuneration payable to each individual working partner but lays down the manner of fixing the remuneration, would the assessee- firm be entitled to deduction in respect of remuneration paid to partners?
In a case where a company is dealing in the sale and purchase of shares, prima-facie the profits derived from the sale and purchase of shares would be treated to be business income of the assessee since the assessee is a trader in shares, that does not mean that a trading firm cannot make long term investment in shares and income from sale of such shares may fall under the head of capital gains but when a trading firm is involved the onus would be heavily on such a firm to show that this investment was actually a long term investment.
The concept of sub-contract is intrinsically linked with section 194C(2); if there is no sub-contract then the person making payment is not liable to deduct tax at source even if payment is being made to a resident.
Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Maggronic Devices Pvt. Ltd. [2009-TIOL-568-HC-HP-IT] held that payment made by the taxpayer to a Singapore company for outright purchase of plant and product knowhow cannot be considered as ‘Royalty’ within the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, no tax was required to be deducted while making payment to the Singapore company for acquiring such know-how outside India.
Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that Outright purchase of plant knowhow in the form of technical / engineering data, design, drawings etc. is not royalty / fee for technical service, subject to withholding taxes
Even if it is accepted that by a transfer of shares u/s 2(47), there is a transfer in the right to use the capital assets of the company, still s. 170 is not attracted because there is no “transfer of business”. A company is a juristic person and owns the business. The share holders are not the owners of the company. By a transfer of the shares, there is no transfer so far as the company is concerned.
