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.
Hyderabad Distilleries And Wineries Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)- Whether selling and publicity expenses can be disallowed merely on the basis of statement of an auditor – Whether when the similar expenses were allowed by the AO to similar parties, no dis-allowance can be made only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions – Whether the dis-allowance made without giving the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the parties on the basis of whose statement the dis-allowance was made, is against the natural justice.
ACIT v Viceroy Hotels Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) – The payment made by the assessee to the non-resident for only providing advisory services and opinions for the improvement of existing facilities in the hotels for meeting international standards would not fall within ambit of “fees for included services” as enumerated in Art 12(4) of the DTAA between India and USA. The provisions of s 195 were also not applicable and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default within the meaning of s 201(1).
Andhra Bombay Carriers v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Hyderabad)- Whether when assessee is able to lead evidence to show that not only was there reasonable cause for taking money in cash, but amount did not also represent unaccounted money either of assessee or of persons from whom they were taken, normally that should be sufficient to hold that penalty is not justified – Held, yes
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) – Whether book profits is to be computed with reference to each assessment year – Whether profits earned during the period of sickness and available for setting off under normal provisions of Income Tax are to be excluded from the ambit of book profit of non-sick years. – Assessee’s appeal dismissed.
In the case of Synergies Casting Ltd. v. DCIT it was held that exemption under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is not available to an undertaking taken over on lease. Further, the Tribunal held that in order to get the benefit of Section 10B of the Act, for the unexpired period, the taxpayer must prove that it is a successor to the predecessor company. Since the taxpayer was only a lessee it was not a successor to the lessor.
