A reading of the provisions of section 80-IA(10) shows that when business transaction is so arranged that it produces to the assessee more than the ordinary profits, which might be accepted to arise in such eligible business, then the Assessing Officer is empowered to restrict the allowance of deduction under section 80-IA to the amount of profit, which might reasonably be deemed to have been derived from the normal business transactions.
DCIT v. ABAQUS Engineering Pvt Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Recently, the Chennai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of ABAQUS Engineering Pvt Ltdheld that the payment made for supply of software is not ‘royalty’ since it is ‘copyrighted software’ and not copyright in the software. The Chennai Tribunal relied on the Mumbai Tribunal’s decision of TII Telecom International Pvt Ltd and Delhi Tribunal Special Bench decision of Motorola Inc, where it has been held that the supply of software does not amount to any transfer of copyright but only transfer of copyrighted article.
L&T Transportation Infrastructure Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)- Roadside amenities cannot be treated as ‘infrastructure facility’ for the purposes of claiming deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Aban Offshore Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted for deduction of tax @ 1% on subcontract where the sub-contract is entered into to fulfill the conditions of the main contract and the same is not independent to the main contract ?
Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Tribunal emphasised that the essence of a CUP method is a free comparison of the variables in uncontrolled conditions. However, citing practical manifestation, the Tribunal agreed that a comparison of controlled prices may be accepted. This may depend on the facts of the case. Further, the Tribunal stated that the facts in this case did not merit a special reason to rely on comparison based on controlled prices. Hence, the application of the CUP method based on comparison against uncontrolled prices was confirmed by the Tribunal.
ACIT Vs West Asia Maritime Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) (Third Member)- The contention of the assessing authority that the ship was excluded from the ambit of tonnage tax scheme mainly for the reason that the ship is rendering services only between Indian ports, which would have also been rendered on land by road or rail, is too far-fetched.
Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Foundation v DIT (ITAT Chennai)- The principle that the institutions run by the charitable societies may collect fees and service charges does not mean that the institutions can charge fees, etc, at commercial rates from all the people without giving any element of charity to needy people.
Indian Additives Limited Vs The ACIT (ITAT Chennai)- Fact that a particular MAM used by the taxpayer cannot be rejected without providing any cogent reasons. Further, the Tribunal has mentioned that if there exist significant amount of purchases from Associates enterprises , the same cannot be included while computing the gross margins under the Resale Price Method [RPM].
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum Div I) Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Chennai)- The Tribunal has held that the assessee-company has discharged its interest liability and instead of making payment in cash it has issued share capital to the Government as per the G.O. in question. Hence, the provisions of section 41(1)(a) of the Act are not attracted at all. Therefore, the conversion of the payment in the share capital has to be treated as proper discharge of interest payments. This decision is applicable to the facts of this case mutatis mutandis. In view of the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that this issue stands allowed in favour of the assessees in all these appeals.
ACIT Vs M/s Tube Investments of India Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) – A perusal of the terms and conditions as also the invoices as found in the paper book clearly shows that sales tax and excise duty had been collected on the supply of materials by the vendors to the assessee. In these circumstances, in view of the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Silver Oak Laboratories P. Ltd. in S.L.P. No. 18012/2009 dated 17-08-2010, referred to supra, we are of the view that the transaction involved in the present case is a contract for sale and not a contract for carrying out any works.
