The assessee had participated in promotion of EECL, in order to safeguard its business of explosives and detonators in West Bengal. The assessee and EECL are in the same line of business and their activities are inter-connected, the assessee being one of the promoters of the former company. The purpose of giving advances to this related company was in the ‘course of and for the purpose of’ protecting the interests of business of the assessee.
The sum in question was not paid for transfer of any intangible right in respect of manufacture, production or process of cement. The provisions relating to capital gains are therefore not attracted. The amount was paid for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ and would fall within the ambit of Sec.28(va)(a) of the Act. The payment in question clearly falls under the category of a payment for ‘not carrying out any activity in relation to any business’ which at the relevant point of time of accrual in the hands of B.V.Raju, viz., 27.10.1999, was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) – Assessing Officer is vested with a discretionary power to levy or not to levy any penalty in a deserving case. In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) (SC), held that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The Assessing Officer has to exercise his discretion judiciously. If an assessee files the revised return though at a later stage or disclosed true income, penalty need not be levied. No doubt, merely offering additional income will not automatically protect the assessee from levy of penalty but in a given case where the assessee’s case, came forward with additional income though after deduction on account of that the assessee was not in a position to explain properly,
Shri M.V.Subramanyeswara Reddy (HUF) Vs DCIT ITAT Hyderabad Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353).
Shri Suresh Kumar D. Shah v. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- It is held that in a Joint Development Agreement if the Developer has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then the transaction would qualify as a ‘transfer’ under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The fundamental feature which determines the taxability of capital gains is that the gain ought to be from the transfer of a capital asset. This section has a larger scope of operation as it states that the gain shall be deemed income of that previous year in which the transfer takes place. Accordingly, given the deeming provision, the income on account of capital gain should be charged to tax in the same previous year in which the transfer was effected or deemed to have taken place. The doctrine of ‘part performance’ is undoubtedly based upon the doctrine of equity. If one party has performed his part of duty then equity demands that the other party shall also perform his part of the obligation. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires the existence of following conditions:
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.
