DCIT Vs. M/s. Aditya Music (I) Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad)- Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee company is a manufacturer and seller of pre-recorded audio cassettes and CDs. In Profit and Loss A/c. for the years under consideration, the assessee-company claimed the expenditure of copyrights used for manufacturing at Rs. 4,49,95,728 for A.Y. 2006-07 and Rs. 6,34,20,231 for A.Y. 2007-08 as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of the above expenditure treating it as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same.
NJP Surya Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)- In this case, it is on record that in earlier years, returns were non est. returns and the interest claimed cannot be considered as allowed to the assessee in the earlier years. This being so, interest waived in the present assessment year cannot be considered as income of the assessee. Reliance placed by the assessee in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Limited vs. ACIT cited supra supports our view on this issue. In view of the above, we allow the ground raised by the assessee.
Dy. CIT VS M/s. Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) – Section 195 of the Act has to be read along with the charging sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act. One should not read section 195 to mean that the moment there is a remittance; the obligation to deduct TDS automatically arises. If we were to accept such contention, it would mean that on mere payment in India, income would be said to arise or accrue in India.
The contention of the assessee is that the agricultural operations were carried out on the land under consideration. During the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to inspect the lands at that stage. The assessee also filed pahani patrika for the financial year 2006-07, the slab pass-book issued by the Electricity Board before the lower authorities. It was also submitted that there was an open well in the land and water was supplied to the crop through electric motor pumping.
Four Soft Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee given by Indian company to its subsidiary outside India would not fall within the definition of ‘international transaction’. In the absence of any charging provision, the lower authorities are not correct in bringing aforesaid transaction under the purview of transfer pricing. The Tribunal observed that corporate guarantee is very much incidental to the business of the taxpayer and hence, the same cannot be compared to a bank guarantee transaction of the Bank or financial institution.
Rain Commodities Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- Prejudicial to the interest of revenue appearing in section 263 is conjunction with the expression ‘erroneous’ and that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot prejudice to the interest of Revenue. In case, where the assessing officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law where two views are plausible the CIT cannot exercise his power u/s 263 to defer with the AO even if there has been a loss of revenue.
Dy. Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)- I Vs. Louis Berger International Inc. (ITAT Hyderabad)- Reimbursable expenses being received in connection with the rendering of consultancy services is not taxable as ‘fees for technical services’ in accordance with clause (vii) of sub-section (i) of Section 9 of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Part 4 of Article 12 of the DTAA with USA.
DCIT Vs Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Limited (ITAT Hyderabad)- Risk adjustment disallowed, impact of intangibles on pricing negated, taxpayer estopped from subsequently pointing facts having material bearing, application of export earnings filter approved, etc.
M/s Prajna Technologies & Services Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) – Observing the nature of business, the taxpayer never sold the right to carry on the business of its software development or its right to carry on any business. It had merely sold a specific sale contract with a client, which is routine outsourcing in all businesses. The provision of Section 55(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be applicable in the present case and accordingly the transaction would fall under the ambit of the expression “right to manufacture, produce or process any article or thing”. The said expression was inserted by the Finance Act 1997 w.e.f. 1 April 1998. Hence, the contention of the taxpayer that the amendment to Section 55(2)(a) bringing the transfer of commercial right to capital gain tax is effective from the AY 2003-04 and not 2002-03 is not tenable. Hence the transfer of a specific sale contract is taxable as capital gains under Section 55(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ACIT vs M/s Seaways Shipping Ltd. (ITAT) (ITAT Hyderabad) – Non deduction of TDS by the assessee was resulted in disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a) (ia), that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee has failed to deduct TDS which resulted in disallowance of expenditure; the mistake committed by the assessee was compensated by disallowing the expenditure. Further, the Revenue cannot penalise the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
