CIT Vs H.P. Marketing Board (Himachal High Court)- Marketing board is not a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) prior to the amendment made in section 10(20) when the word `local authority’ was not defined in the Income tax Act and the definition of `local authority’ as defined in section 3(31) of the General Clause Act was applicable.
CIT v Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. – ITAT, on the basis of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that the building of the poultry shed has been specifically designed with a view to protect the birds from disease. It has been designed to ensure proper lighting and circulation of air; proper and scientific feeding arrangement; proper water system; proper arrangement for collection of manure and droppings; proper arrangement for medication and vaccination; and a right environment conducive for laying of eggs by the birds. The building had been designed in a manner so as to protect the birds and increase their productivity. The argument made on behalf of the revenue that the building can be used with certain modification for certain other purposes cannot be accepted. It is how the building is designed which is the main factor which is to be taken into consideration. The law is clear that if it is found that the building has been designed specifically to further the cause of manufacture or production then the same is a plant. Applying the aforesaid test, we hold that the poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of section 243, as it then stood.
CIT v Steinle Machine Fabric India – The Circular is specific that in group cases also, each single case must be taken up individually to decide the monetary limits. It appears that these instructions were issued to avoid unnecessary litigation and also litigation where the tax effect was much less and it waste time and money recovering small amounts but we hasten to add that dismissal of such appeals on the ground that the tax effect is low does not mean that we have given any decision on merits nor have we decided such questions of law. These questions can be decided in appropriate proceedings where the tax effect is more than the limit prescribed in the circular.
M/s Durga Dass Devki Nandan vs. ITO (HP High Court) – The CBDT circular can only be held to be valid if it is in terms of the main section. As held above, the Section 40(b)(v) only lays down that either the working partner should be paid an amount specified in the partnership deed or it should not exceed the amount laid down in the Section. In the present case the partners have been paid their remuneration/salary strictly in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed and this amount paid to the partners does not exceed the maximum permissible amount and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
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.
